The ancient Corinthian philosopher, Diogénēs, squatted and emptied his bowels in a well-timed and orchestrated act in front of an, up-to-this-point, rapturous audience. He wished to express his cynicism towards their lifestyles. His expression of contempt was to expose the hypocrisy of the informed and educated elite, happy to live with gross class inequality, slavery, opulence and corrupt personal power, but their sensibilities outraged by seeing another human being shit – a daily basic fact of life for us all.

It’s a basic rule across all classes – don’t shit on your own doorstep. Unless you don’t give a crap. And that appears to be the attitude of Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his senior adviser (if not puppet-master), Dominic Cummings. The people who created the Lockdown Rules (against their own basic instincts, it has to be said, and too late to prevent thousands of unnecessary deaths), broke those laws from the very beginning and, when found out, have defended their right to break them.

The Elite are decent people, you see, as oppose to us common drunkards and n’er-do-wells. Cummings has been presented to us as simply a caring father (again, suggesting most of us Plebs aren’t), and did the “right thing” by travelling and walking publicly while infected with COVID-19, which, by contrast, most of us are not responsible enough to be trusted to do.

There is a much needed public outcry. Not just at the act itself but at the attempts by the most powerful politicians as well as friends and family to keep it all secret for months. It’s so good to see people spontaneously turning-up outside the Cummings’ London house and chanting their outrage, let alone the advertising trucks broadcasting Johnson’s original lockdown message onto his doorstep.

But this outcry may be misplaced. Are we simply smelling the Number 2 and not analysing the underlying message? This is the man who has publicly stated that: “Tory MPs largely do not care about these poorer people. They don’t care about the NHS.”

Has Big C carefully choreographed every quote and act in order to cut the crap?

The elite had managed to have The Mob lock ourselves away for the best part of two months, largely lagging behind the responses of most other governments worldwide (apart from the USA). They acted at all times reluctantly because, as ideological eugenicists, they wanted to let the virus become part of public life, the fittest able to survive and the infirm and disabled freeing-up the inadequate social infrastructure by dying.

They knew that having 2-300,000 people die, the projected scientific figure if no action was taken, might threaten their power. As it is, the 80-120,000 deaths they are projected to be liable for appears workable as a compromise. Nevertheless, it is now time to end the pretence and force us all out of Lockdown and back to work. After all, they have a 60+ working majority government and no effective opposition.

Support for Johnson’s government has weakened to that of last December’s election, not exactly a signal of mass revolt. But the carefully constructed mixed-messages from Cumming’s Number 10 haven’t confused the public enough to no longer care. And, most importantly, the campaigns putting People before Profit, developed from the bottom-up to force trade unions and working class tribunes to act, have had some effect.

By last week the Government was on the back foot, fully cognisant of the growing opposition most apparent in the refusenik teachers and parents saying no to returning to schools on 1st June. How to break this inertia in the plan for “herd immunity”?

The first tactic of any Ruling Class is to divide the mass so to rule. So they protected their supporters with tax-payers money whilst herding the slaves back-to-work, carefully protecting the message of staying safe to appease their furloughed base whilst doing nothing practical to keep the workers healthy.

Then they condemned the dissenters and doubters as “becoming addicted to staying at home”, loosening the messages to ensure their right-wing cohort (within the Mob as well as their own Upper Classes) ran to the countryside and beaches in a party frenzy. COVID-19 was back on the loose to be caught and spread for a Second Wave that would do the job that the Lockdown had impeded.

And the Cummings’ controversy? They know it’ll blow over, the small bunch of Tory dissenters exposed to be culled once “all this” is over, with deep questions of democracy and plebiscite left hanging in the air. But how do you finally break the resistance and reinstill an “everyman for himself” (they are misogynists after all) mentality after Lockdown? Best to act by example.

Let’s “leak” the facts about Cummings’ family trips and offer the “any decent father would do the same” message of patriarchy, individual reliance, family-first survivalism and personal choice over social responsibility. Yep, breaking the Lockdown rules was the right thing to do.

But perhaps I’m just being cynical.

I agree generally with the Klein doctrine of Crisis Capitalism. There is no doubt that the social and economic system under which we live lurches from one crisis to the next. The crises are the direct consequences of how the system works, effectively produced by the dominant mode of production – exploitation and accumulation.

Competition creates war, accumulation produces famine, alienation creates hatred (of self as well as others). The dominant ideology of Capitalism divides in order to rule through white supremacy, male domination, physical elitism and most of all, fear of the unfamiliar “Other”.

Now, COVID-19 has been used to compound the privatisation of the individual as the unit of consumption. As a starting point, being packed together in the forced-family unit has inevitably caused a further rise in domestic abuse of children, women and older relatives. And COVID-19 has usefully created the latest “Other” to be fearful of and consumed by. We all want to be free of it.

Deeper, and more powerful still, is the powerlessness that has been instilled in us all. Whether we are feeling ineffective against the virus itself, at the whim of air-currents or touched-surfaces, or in the hands of an untrustworthy government offering contradictory advice, we have seldom felt more alone in our self-isolation.

Such “loss of Agency” – the correct political term for self-determined choice and action – creates passivity, as does lack of exercise or purposeful activity. Generally, as a sensation, the less you do the less you feel the energy for doing. Conversely, the more you do the more energy appears available. If you want something done, ask a busy person!

I have found the Lockdown to be deeply affecting. I have stopped writing whilst having all the time in the world to think. On the one hand I’ve busied myself with gardening in order to stop the fearful thoughts, and on the other scoured all media by the hour for information by which to make some sense of this crisis. The effect, the synthesis, has been to live in limbo.

I’m waiting for the crisis to be over. It will be over, won’t it? Or is, as Klein suggests, global Capitalism now based upon lurching us from one crisis to the next in order to prevent any coagulation of thought and experience by which to agree upon a better future: a real change of system?

Our powerlessness is essential to maintain the status quo: accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few; endless wars; mass poverty; mounting exploitation and climate collapse. And in such isolation we can contrive just about any set of opinions about reality and Truth. The mind in a vacuum, filled with emotion, can imagine anything it likes. Ideas overtake reality.

So it is that we have seen the attempt, worldwide, of protests against the Lockdown by people proclaiming liberty and freedom from the tyranny of the State. COVID is presented as Conspiracy. Attempts last weekend, following the UK Prime Minister telling all to go back to work, to have parties in local public parks fell flat. Clashes with police at Hyde Park’s Speakers Corner showed protesters, undeniably fascist in motive, proclaiming “freedom of speech and action” against the far-right Tory government they probably voted for just months ago.

Those who would deny human rights on the basis of their skin colour let alone ethnic background, now proclaimed freedom of assembly as a fundamental human right. By way of response, mainly virtual, anti-fascists condemned the assemblies and called-upon the working classes to “stay at home” despite the opening-up of Lockdown.

Superficially it would appear, the worm had turned. The Right were now proclaiming “Freedom,” the Left, social control. The far-Right who seek totalitarian White supremacy faked an anti-State stance, the Left apparently supported the eugenicist, racist far-right government.

Confusion, part of Klein’s “Fear Doctrine”, has been assured. But only if there is no method by which to test and understand reality. For budding Marxists, dialectical materialism offers such a method. Learn from past historical experiences, acknowledge situational facts over ideological presumptions, assess the societal conditions of the time as well as the motivations behind people’s actions.

In short, there is a Reality but only understandable in hindsight because everything is in a state of flux and therefore constantly changing. The “flux” is the point in the middle of the tension between all opposing forces. That takes a bit of working on. Over simplification ends up suggesting “thesis, antitheses, and synthesis”.

So the thesis is “self-isolate for the common good of weakening the spread of the virus until we can find a way of killing it off as a threat to human life”. The antithesis is “herd-immunity” – let the virus take its course and become part of the human experience, like the common cold (and lets not talk in detail about just how much more debilitating and deadly COVID-19 actually is), and get on with our normal lives.

This allows those anti-humans (from Malthusians to Nihilists) to demand freedom of movement when in fact they believe in State Power to prevent migration; and allows those who are pro-humanity to call for State support and restrictions in order to ensure proper protection of everyone, when in fact we believe wholeheartedly in universal liberty.

The tension at the heart of reality is between self-determination and mutual aid. Unbridled freedom is dog-eat-eat antisocial survival-of-the-fittest. Our own self-determination has to include consideration fo the impact of our behaviour upon the lives of others as well as the environment and ecology. So Freedom requires self-determined restrictions.

The synthesis is a human society based upon collective need, not individual avarice. The very antithesis of Capitalism. The fascists are seeking to impose survival-of-the fittest by demanding the right to free movement and the freedom to spread disease and death willy nilly. The socialists are respecting isolation as the temporary cost of collective safety – self-determination begins with survival.

Away from political philosophy, the day-to-day reality is that the UK’s far-Right government is seeking in all ways possible to bring about a “herd-immunity” regime. They are demanding schools to start reopening on 1st June, and as such, allow the virus to run rampant.

Thankfully, the People are not stupid. With 60,000+ premature deaths in the UK associated with COVID-19, no-one trusts the government’s call. Even those who don’t care if “the Others” die don’t want to die themselves (many of the “Freedom” fascists were wearing masks in the open-air). Right now, coughing at each other and holding hands is simply not safe.

So there’s a Movement against the schools’ opening, with much online discussion and plenty of organising that is bringing people together. The effect can be a successful boycott, not simply of the schools but also of the Government’s “Profits before People” campaign.

The right-wing’s response is to suggest we, the socialists and the trade unions, don’t care about the poor and the abused children who need schooling and release from the horrors of toxic family life. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yet the apparent contradictions, the dialectical tensions in this situation are immense.

Those who have slashed State funding of health and social welfare, those who cover-up child abuse and have done so much to increase child poverty now use the reality of inequality against those who have fought and campaigned against the causes of human suffering all our lives.

The very depth and strength of these tensions offer hope for the near future. The pressure is immense, and that suggests there will be real social upheavals – pressure cookers explode when the safety valve is shut. Indeed, the release from confinement, the end of powerlessness, however tentative and carefully organised, could produce a synthesis of human collaboration for real social change.

2020 Vision

Beginning a hopeful decade

There came a brand new blight,

Whooping with indignation

And wheezing with delight.

Some eight billion people

Roused to join the fight

To not die prematurely

Or speak their last Goodnight.

The Governments were slow to act

They sought to lay the blame

Against some one-or-other

Or animals and game.

The Truth was very different

And only known too late

That plans for “herd immunity”

Advised them just to wait

And let the virus take its toll

Until a peak was reached,

When sufficient numbers were immune

And COVID-19 breached.

They meant for old and vulnerable

Alike to pay the price

To cheaply solve infection

“You can’t catch Covid twice”.

They found some selfish scientists

Who’d just speak as they’re told

That this sickness was harmless

Unless you’re very old.

“We must keep business running”

We heard our rulers shout

And newspapers blamed the poor

For having to go out.

It’ll all be over by Easter

Decreed the Emperor Trump

But the medics all decried him

Declaring him a chump.

Reality was soon to hit

As thousands swamped the wards

Of hospitals still ill equipped

To deal with coughing hoards.

The masks were not forthcoming,

The ventilators still,

Good doctors and their nursing staff

Together falling ill.

A lockdown was agreed abroad

Too late to stem the tide,

Restricting work and life and love,

Too awful to abide.

We tried to stay at home and watch

Life through a neon screen,

To understand with shock and awe

A crisis so obscene

That millions lost their incomes

Whilst taxes bailed their bosses

And police forces and soldiers

Protected them from losses

And food banks were relied upon

By the poor, the weak and ill

“Stay at home, don’t make a fuss

Lie down, lay low, be still!”

But on a Sunday evening

Each came out from their house

To applaud the brave young medics

Who risked their lives for us.

The message started to emerge

That Governments were playing

A fiendish game with all our lives –

Don’t believe what they were saying;

They’d cut our social care to shreds,

Shut our hospitals too,

Denied us beds and privatised,

Huge profits to accrue.

The warnings had come years ago

Prepare for the next pandemic

But politicians of every hue

Said it was academic

That prophesies should not impede

The quest for growth and wealth,

No need to spend or invest at all

To protect the people’s health.

The companies were bailed-out

Whilst workers incurred debt

And landlords planned evictions

If the rent arrears weren’t met.

The banking bosses washed their hands

Of lower interest rates

To charge the earth for overdrafts

For everyone but their mates.

And doctors soon were forced to choose

Who should live or die,

Some lives worth more than others?

The eugenicist’s Great Lie.

And refugees still fresh from grief

Corralled into tent cities

Were collectively quarantined,

Infected without pity.

The pious called it God’s own will,

A judgment on human conditions,

And even climate activists

Applauded low emissions.

The far-Right anti-humanists

Hoped to reap rewards

By brandishing their racism

Of “Death to Foreign Hoards”.

But as the millions became unwell

Throughout the human world

Our anger began to rise and swell

Our banners soon unfurled

“To hell with with your profit margins,

To hell with the billionaire,

The lives of ordinary people

Should be your primary care!

“We pay our taxes willingly

Whilst the super rich pay now’t

So spend our commonwealth on us”,

We heard the People shout.

Enough of all your feeble lies

Deceptions and false news

Leaving us to pay the price

We never shall excuse.

You knew the threat long months ago.

Governments were warned.

You could have stopped this massive spread,

This catastrophe you spawned.

Instead you left the poor to rot

And sought to help the greedy

Profit from our misery

And neglect the weak and needy.

But a time is fast approaching

When your lockdown will be ended

And the wrath of those bereaved and sad

Will call out unimpeded

“Social Justice Now!” And Peace

For all through mass investment

In social infrastructure

And a fair assessment

Of who works for the common good

And who gets off so light

That their greedy exploitation

Proves they’re the parasite!

Today’s ratio of deaths to confirmed cases is 1 in 20. In truth there is very little knowledge of the true scale of infection. Lack of screening has been criticised by scientists to a point where the British Government is increasing tests from 2,000 to 25,000 a day.

The Government predicts around 20,000 deaths from COVID-19. If that were from any other cause there’d be outrage and public inquiry. Yet today’s report from the scientists at Imperial College, London, suggest there could be 250,000 in the UK before any vaccine is rolled-out across the population.

Whatever the morbidity rate it is shocking on any number of levels.

The Government failed to heed lessons from China or Italy and took no notice of the World Health Organisation. Prime Minister Johnson and his cronies continued with the test-tube experiment of “herd immunity” while Italy’s doctors spoke of experiencing an “unimaginable catastrophe”, unable to cope with the number of people requiring intensive care.

People are therefore dying unnecessarily, and we are all left to decide precisely how to react. Pressure from trade unions and teachers has seen the government finally close schools to all except the most vulnerable children and those whose parents are key workers. It was, at the same time, a fait á compli as more and more teachers and support staff fell ill or self-isolated because of others ill in their family.

This is an entirely new social situation without any historical reference. Society is vastly different to the post-war influenza epidemic of 1918 or the polio outbreak when I was a child. The ease of transmission and infection of CORVID-19 should create shock and due diligence on an unprecedented scale. Perhaps thats why “panic-buying” is also now at epidemic proportions. Yet social distancing and self-isolation is not.

It is probably predictable given the human condition, that there is no hegemony of accepted ideas or responses. Some billionaires want excessive tax handouts to sustain their corporate profits, some local shopkeepers have quadrupled the price of toilet rolls, whilst many locals have joined forces to offer voluntary support to the isolated and the vulnerable.

In short, the hoarding is happening at the top of society not the bottom.

The responses inside families is not uniform either, and there are already clear signs of disagreements over how to act through to arguments between polar opposites on the spectrum of what the government should do. That may sound familiar as a pattern in every intimate household, and certainly will become more intense as self-isolation becomes a requirement rather than recommendation.

But there is a difference with COVID-19. There has never before been a demand to stay indoors for 14-days or more. Alongside the ensuing claustrophobia lurks hidden tensions, the close proximity without escape being a breeding ground for an increase in domestic abuse and violence, already experienced by 1 in 4 women in the UK for an average period of 7 years at a time.

Children of all ages but particularly teenagers will soon be jigging their legs and losing their tempers, going “stir crazy” to a degree that will make the classroom appear as nirvana by comparison with their bedroom. Toddlers will be in revolt, no doubt.

Nevertheless, it is the relationships between grown-ups that I am most concerned with. Yes, the virus is unforgiving of those with pre-existing conditions. But the “stay at home for three months” government diktat, already weighing heavily upon the over ‘70’s and older people with underlying health problems, is fraught with dangers.

It only takes one householder to determine the threat level to be higher than does their partner and there will be discord. Household routines, some decades old, have to change fundamentally. And the very basic facts of life, rarely discussed until crisis comes, include arrangements for death.

And death has loomed large. Where one self-isolates and the other lives a more relaxed existence, what is to be done? Government advice includes that people should live in separated areas of their home for periods if one is mixing with others and the other not. Eat, sleep and languish separately, for 14 days at a minimum when one has come into contact with potential carriers, up to 3 months where one has to continue to risk the outside world.

Any loving relationship is going to be tested by this. The strength needed to say “I Love You” but I’m living away from you is substantial. The strength needed to accept the other’s self quarantine, equally tough. Both require the starting agreement that neither want the other to catch Coronavirus, whatever it takes.

And then there’s the dilemma of care and nursing. If one gets the dreaded cough and temperature, does the other desegregate to offer tender loving care? If both are elderly, vulnerable, and long-established as a couple, how could they not? After all, the likelihood of being hospitalised despite their health records is extremely low.

And then there’s death. Lovers tend, on their death bed, to take some solace in knowing that their partner will live on, remember them but move forward and enjoy more life. Would the dying partner want to be nursed by their partner, placing them at great risk? Or is it expected that one goes, both go in a strange incantation of “I can’t live without you”.

And what of the relatives? Children and grandchildren. Their sudden bereavement will breed potential recriminations towards one grandparent not having done enough for their partner, now deceased. Or conversely, is now at deaths door because s/he broke the quarantine out of love and compassion. There is shallow compensation in the fact there shall be no family funerals or wakes as theatres for the feuding family flack to fly.

A compassionate society based upon collective need not private profit would respond with decency to these core human dilemmas. There would be well protected and trained community nursing staff to prevent the risk to partners. There would be early and routine testing to catch the contamination quickly enough to isolate and treat before spreading.

There would be a sufficiency of beds in Intensive Care Units to relieve partners of the moral dilemma let alone the arduous and self-denying nursing care.

But there are none of these things. Not in the UK anyway. In Germany there are just over 29 ICU beds per thousand of the population and they’re under pressure. In Italy, now experiencing the horror of fragmenting infrastructure whilst not yet at the peak of contamination, there are 12.5 beds per thousand, most dying on camp beds in school gymnasiums. In the UK, just 6.6. This is what a crisis looks like.

The chances of getting specialist care as an older person with COVID-19 is minimal. The consequent upheaval for partner and family is as excruciating as the death, a pneumonia-like inflammation and painful shut down of the lungs, a sudden and premature loss of love, companionship, security. All within a couple of days. How to prepare for that.

The best preparation is to seek by all means possible not to catch the virus. Those who treat it lightly, or who scoff at the self-isolation of the worried, should reflect deeply on the consequences of their attitudes and actions. And those intimately involved will have to recognise that a period apart, quarantined and alone, is infinitely better than the much longer alternative.

And those who have created such an inhuman society should never be forgiven.

I can’t remember when I’ve been more angry or more scared.

I’m scared, quite honestly, not so much for myself, even tho’ I’ve self-isolated as an “older person with underlying health conditions” as the much used phrase now rolls off the tongue. As an asthmatic I don’t relish the sensation of gasping for breath, but I’m actually scared by the potential for millions more people being plunged into extremes of destitution.

With government requiring self-isolation of entire families if not neighbourhoods because of COVID-19, employers are “laying-off” or sacking people whilst enforcers are expected to criminalise people who should be in quarantine but aren’t. When it comes to it, if your family is infected and you need to feed them, you’ll either go out to work despite the risks, or go out to steal in order to survive. Who would stay at home and choose to starve or be evicted by self-protecting landlords?

Billionaires like Richard Branson are demanding billions in cash-handouts from tax-payers to keep his climate-collapsing airline and cruise ship companies afloat, whilst workers can claim a maximum of £94:50 a week in statutory sick pay. As a friend noted today, that would leave another £70 a week still to be found to simply pay the rent, leaving no cash to feed his partner and two children. Branson has told his thousands of staff they are now on at least two-months leave without pay. How are they going to survive?

I’m angry because it doesn’t have to be this way.

In France, under the neoliberal “populist” Macron, taxes, rates and utility bills are suspended and to be covered for the duration by the State, legally preventing employers from deducting wages whilst workers are in isolation. Similarly in Spain the privatised hospitals are being renationalised overnight. Denmark has finalised a tripartite agreement for permanent employees that either are subject to work reduction or possible dismissal due to the Corona Virus: for the next 3 months, companies will pay 25% of the affected workers wages, the government 75%. Workers lose 5 holiday days.

Meanwhile, the UK is, once again, being used as a test-tube for a neoliberal “protect big business and the super-Rich” test-tube to see how we fare without state intervention or guarantees: appallingly would be my guess at the cost to the millions of ordinary workers more than any business owner. It’s not that European Capitalism is any better than the UK – the European Union is actually doing nothing in response to the Coronavirus except shooting at migrants trying to escape even worse conditions in the war-torn Middle East and climate-shriven sub-Saharan geographic girdle of this crisis-riven Earth. It is the case that France and Spain have seen huge mass protests of millions in recent months and fear more if they don’t offer at least some crumbs to protect the working class.

Speaking last night with my sister who married into American citizenship decades ago, all the Trump promises are nothing more than chimera and outright lies as the billionaire dictatorship seeks to profit from the crisis just as the unscrupulous have under any wartime conditions. Google, Amazon and the pharmaceuticals are being handed all-but countless tax-dollars and producing nothing tangible in return, just as the USA’s industries did when plundering Iraq after the illegal invasion of 2003. The Pandemic is the latest opportunity to print and hoard more wealth whilst the world burns. The strongest capitalist corporations will survive, the weaker going to the wall. Let it the anarchy of the Market prevail once more.

Banks are being handed billions to sure-up their supposed liquidity, none of which will trickle down to us anymore than it did after the 2008 Crash. Meanwhile, the downtrodden US citizens are losing what little private pensions they have because of stock-market crash bigger than 1987 or anytime since, and queuing-up to buy guns in preparation for the coming social strife that is sure to ensue from mass immiserisation.

The economic threat to the majority almost eclipses the health crisis even tho’ current estimates are that COVID-19 has a 2.3% case-fatality rate and a 19% rate of severe disease. This means that achieving herd immunity to COVID-19 in the UK could result in the deaths of more a million people with a further eight million severe infections requiring critical care. The supposed pride-of-the-world National Health Service here is already short of supplies and seeing mass infection of its’ staff, cleaners, nurses and doctors alike. Xenophobic government propaganda repeats the lie of us having the best services in the world whilst our doctors anonymously post the truth of condition in hospitals that no newspaper will carry, for fear of punishment. And fear is a common expression, everywhere.

Some in the Environment Movement are welcoming the Pandemic as having a very immediate impact on pollution and emission levels as flights and travel stop, and are even suggesting that the “Boomers”, i.e. the Elderly born after the Second World War, are getting our comeuppance for having destroyed the Planet. Of course this precursor to full-on societal collapse is an sobering example of things to come, but nothing to be appreciated or relished if you care at all for other people.

Theirs is, ultimately, an extreme right-wing view from a very privileged position, not only fallacious in its total lack of historical or scientific accuracy but also feeding the anti-human, Malthusian and class-privileged propaganda of Johnson’s far-right government. The Environment Movement is not the domain of only left wing views or people. Their idea of “no more business as usual” concludes with “let them die for their sins” as a solution to the climate crisis. Apparently, the Planet is reaping it’s revenge on us and should be supported to do its worst. Such reactionary twaddle.

But the crisis could offer opportunities never to return to the status quo of Capitalist exploitation and competition. The question is how to revolt in the time of societal shut-down. If the Climate Movement is split between Left and Right whilst the working class is struggling for individual survival, isolated from each other and victim to online scare-stories and Establishment media lies, what chance have we to build effective opposition?

Firstly, Mutual Aid groups are springing-up everywhere, spontaneously enough, offering a chance for reasoned and factual online discourse whilst ensuring the safety and care of the most vulnerable in society. These groups can develop a critical analysis and focussed challenge to the government’s intransigence.

Secondly, some groups of health, care and emergency services in Italy have taken strike action to force, in the most powerful way possible, government to expand resources and deliver more help. It should be added that, because Italy’s national economy was already a basket case, it has sent out pleas for international aid currently heeded and responded to by no less than China and Cuba – no doubt propaganda exercises but certainly exposing the intransigence of the Western neoliberal Capitalist nation states.

Undoubtedly, strike action in the form of a General Strike has its own difficulties and consequences. But put the two together, mutual aid and collective defiance of employers’ self-protection and continued class warfare, and we have a recipe for real and lasting social change. I remember being active through the Great Miners Strike in the UK, 1984-5, when huge donations from the majority of the working class kept the strikers powerful and defiant for the best part of a year. Support groups and communal kitchens exemplified the power of the Collective.

Taking strike action rather than accepting “unpaid leave” has the advantage of completely closing down the bosses’ business, and given the inadequacy of welfare payments the establishment of neighbourhood support networks could easily outweigh the paltry £94:50 a week sick payment, especially if we enact a universal rent and mortgage strike as well. We could make the wealthy howl with pain, just for a change.

Does this all sound unnecessarily vicious and destructive? What? Unlike the vicious and, by its numbers, genocidal current policies of the Capitalist class-based governments so protective of the rich? What the crisis is exposing, possibly to a greater extent than any other time in recent history, is the total impossibility of Capitalism as a system to meet the needs of the majority let alone us all. It is, above all, this stratified class system of haves and have-nots that has created not only the Pandemic but the threat of global climate catastrophe. It’s time, not to lie-down (if it can be avoided) but to rise-up!

Whilst the British Government has made a single concession to the global advice by banning mass events, the political response of Johnson & Co to the Covid-19 pandemic stands isolated and singular amongst all nations. Yes, even Trump’s USA is doing more to combat mass infection than Britain, with universal access to screening being just one of a package of safeguards for the population.

Trump has declared a national emergency and identified £50 million in aid. Johnson, a eugenicist, is the mouthpiece for a completely unscientific and ideologically toxic axiom. His advisers, including Dominic Cummings, a eugenicist, are spouting “behavioural psychology” to portray a strategy for “herd immunity”. They are letting us continue with “business as usual” from the prediction that once most of us have contracted Covid-19 we will, as a nation, develop resistance and immunity to the virus.

This has no scientific basis. “Herd Immunity” in science is a process where, once at least half the population are vaccinated against a virus there are no longer enough people carrying it to spread it far and wide. Crucially, we have to have a vaccine and at least 50% of the population need to have been vaccinated before “herd immunity” begins to work. Point One: there is no vaccine.

The UK, with no news pictures of public streets and areas being sprayed with anti-viral cleansers or deep-clean teams in protective suits cleaning public transport and handrails, is letting the virus run rampant. Film from around the world, including the USA, shows huge effort to cleanse public places. But not in the UK. Even Trump is considering banning all travel form the UK to America. Point Two: Allowing the virus to spread will ensure half-a-million or more deaths.

And then, in defence of “Keep Calm and Carry On”, the BBC finds a psychiatrist whose wife is currently suffering, at home, from testing positive to Covid-19, who complains on prime-time morning Radio that he was asked to phone-in from home rather than come in to the studio for interview. He said his wife is staying 4-metres away from him in their house and therefore he’s perfectly safe from infection! Point Three: just because you’re a qualified professional doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about.

And then we’re back to the start. The eugenicists who dream of a super-race and find the elderly, infirm and disabled a brake on human progress, are in charge of our health and safety. This, combined with a Malthusian starting point of belief that there are just too many damned people in the world, is producing an extreme and unique social policy of leaving the virus to ravage the country.

The fact they promote the concept of “the herd” to refer to human society when it is primarily used in relation to animal husbandry displays their inner contempt for and perception of we, the common people. This false science of “behaviouralism” offers succour to the elitist supremacists that there is herd-mentality in general society that can be manipulated and controlled.

Add to this their deep commitment to the neoliberal free market, wholly disproven as an economic policy that serves or protects the majority of society, and they conclude that every catastrophe offers an opportunity for someone – there’s money to be made out of death and societal discord. Let some business go to the wall, let the fittest survive, the pharmaceutical companies and producers of hand-gel can make a killing…

Johnson is being challenged. The World Health Organisation has challenged the “herd immunity” policy. Dr Margaret Harris from WHO has publicly pronounced that it is based on absolutely no evidence. In fact, the so-called behavioural science from which the theory is derived only offers observations of human behaviours and is completely divorced from the real sciences of biology and medicine. It is pseudo, spurious, a sham.

Isn’t it beyond fearful that a government has the power to create policy that will produce catastrophe? Shouldn’t we be seriously challenging such corrupt duping of an entire population, not least when it will result in many lives being prematurely and needlessly ended? Here’s the rub. There is a sizeable proportion of the population who want to believe this nonsense because they have already swallowed the anti-vaccine zeitgeist.

Recent decades have displayed a growing and very obvious distrust of government and corporations leading to a flat-earth world-view incorporation of all manner of conspiracy theories, not least that vaccinations are used by the hidden and deep State to enforce social control. In an astounding convergence of double-think, these same right-wing, ultra-individualist survivalists are consuming Johnson’s pseudo-science and praising his anti-authoritarian approach to the world pandemic.

The Coronavirus has infected the ideological body politic with a new disease. The “fuck-it”, “I’m Alright Jack” mentality is spreading like wildfire across Britain as exquisitely distinct from possibly every other country in the world. It is down to us, the people who care for each other, who value scientific fact as opposed to ideologically concocted falsehoods, who see through the self-interest of political careerists, to challenge the lies. We must be heard.

Italy has suspended mortgage repayments and utility bills. Trump has suspended loan repayments by students for the foreseeable future, and introduced federal sick-pay from day-one in a country where there is no sick-pay whatsoever in 37 of the 50 states. There are lockdowns, deep-cleans and social distancing requirements across every continent and in every country – except the UK! The lives of millions are at risk.

Our response to the pandemic has to be neighbourhood and workplace mutual support. Ensuring workplaces are clean and safe and when we are infected we remain cared for and financially solvent. Checking on our neighbours, offering additional support and concern for the elderly and disabled, and changing our own behaviours to avoid spreading the germs.

Such human empathy and shared support will have to be matched by political organisation to voice outrage against this vicious, lying, far-right and inhuman UK government. With mass protest banned in amongst all mass gatherings, the potential for a silencing of all reason and fact is very possible. We have to use new methods of social networking and distance communication to beat the virus, and as importantly beat this far-right ideological assault, both aimed at liquidating our freedom and prosperity.

Speak out against the culling of the herd.

Yes, I’m panicking. Late sixties, heart and lung disease, a health service that is rationing admissions of the over ‘60’s and a Government that doesn’t care. Prime Minister Johnson appeared with groomed lackeys last night to tell us to stay at home and self-isolate. In reality, the infrastructure of our health and social care will not cope with the demand.

The Coronavirus epidemic is not a fake-news scare story. The current global death rates are some thirty-times higher than for influenza, and that’s scary. Panic buying is already intense, alongside vicious attacks on Black people across Britain perpetrated by racists using the risk of contamination as an excuse to blame and persecute non-Whites. The attacks on Chinese people wearing masks in public in the UK are as alarming as they are absurd.

Doctors in the thick of it declare this to be “the most frightening virus ever” – more contagious than Ebola or SARS and a higher death rate than flu. From Italy we hear that the marching orders are: “Save scarce resources for those patients who have the greatest chance of survival.”That means prioritizing younger, otherwise healthy patients over older patients or those with pre-existing conditions.”

As someone ticking most boxes of pre-existing conditions this raises existential issues. Are some people’s lives worth saving more than others? It’s a political as well as moral issue. As socialist author, Michael Rosen debated on BBC Radio 4, if we take a position other than “every life is equally precious”, where does society end up? I could say I’d rather a older left-wing socialist climate activist with heart trouble was saved than a macho-racist fascist, but what if the governors of the medical services felt the opposite?

Hmmm…Right to Life, and all that.

The right-wing responses to predictions that 80% of us will eventually catch Covid-19 include, as examples: people dismissing life as a lottery, championing the false “scientific Darwinism” of survival of the fittest; proselytising about the fake science of “behaviouralism” (that is, observe what you want and write it up as scientific fact); disregarding the threat as a Liberal conspiracy; organising outright eugenics by leaving the disabled to die or actively welcoming the Malthusian “clear-out” of the old and vulnerable clogging up our health and social care system.

The range and depth of emotions stimulated by the epidemic could easily outstrip the distress experienced by the illness itself.

For activists there are many factors to be considered. Not least, the incredible vulnerability of human society, the social fabric easily fragmented, the scale of production dramatically reduced by supply-side disruptions. The threat of social collapse caused by combined and extreme weather events, not to mention actual climate shift, is visibly exemplified by this current health crisis.

A second focus for us is industrial farming and specifically animal management. Intensive animal farming, the horror of their treatment a subject for a separate blog of outrage and pain, and the growth of exotic wildlife meat markets are the sources of continuous spread of life-threatening disease.

For the humanist, the way humans treat animals reflects upon the concurrent inhuman behaviours of humans one to another. For the scientist, the poor management of animal life is the root cause of much of societies ills. For the climate activist, the industrialised production of meat produces, proportionally, the highest levels of global heating gases of any industry other than the military.

Together this appears to amount to a searing indictment of humanity. Of course, its not quite as simple as that. When living above subsistence (and often even when on the verge of starvation), humans love and care for the animals around them. More than any other human condition, hunger and the need to survive tends to erode compassion. Any decent human society would place human need above all else.

A compassionate society would end industrial animal farming I’m sure. More vitally, for society to survive at all it is fairly universally accepted that consumption of meat has to fall markedly, not least of cows and bulls (the term “Beef” redacts all reference to the living being) to reduce global heating gases. Animal husbandry is certainly a core part of the transition required to prevent runaway climate change.

And the pandemic threat raises a third discussion for the environmentalist -the core debate about what we mean by “A Just Transition”. This is a lively and earnest set of current arguments about the transformation of society to Carbon-Zero. Whilst open political preference is apparently frowned upon, the demand for protection of democracy through the transition is shared by the majority.

We want everyone to be engaged with and participative in decisions to decry the internal combustion engine and carbon fuels. We certainly don’t want a totalitarian dictatorship to decree carbon-zero whatever the pain and injustice incurred. Do we? In the same way we want our old and vulnerable protected as much as anyone else from disease and premature death, not sacrificed by a Government keen to protect business profits above comfort in our old age.

Current images from China, South Korea and Italy raise important questions. The appearance of quarantine as a form of social control is inescapable. I have repeatedly imagined what would happen if people in Plymouth were threatened with imprisonment if we appeared on the streets. How well would a curfew be accepted? I’d like to predict an uprising, but today’s global school strikes were cancelled by Greta Thunberg herself!

Locally there appears to be a tacit acceptance of “staying in your home” – a self-imposed curfew, for a period of 14 days should you begin a fever. Even football fans will accept a close-down of the games on the basis of stopping the spread. Quite fundamental changes to human interactions and behaviours are being readily discussed and accepted in the cause of preventing a pandemic.

So why not the the same level of acquiescence to social change in the existential face of human extinction? Most importantly it is governments, informed by scientists, who are demanding collective engagement with the viral threat. Yet the same governments, informed by a far wider and diverse set of scientific analysis, refuse to act with anywhere near the same level of determination towards the existent global heating.

Or is this a false observation from the very beginning? Is it, in fact, the case that most governments are doing as little as possible to protect the people whilst offering every support to ensure production and profits are maintained – “business as usual”? It is reported that ten times as many people click to watch the virus-deniers and paranoid conspiracy online posts as click the government advice adverts. Is this proof of virus-denial being as widespread as climate-denial?

One conclusion has to be this. To win hearts and minds to the level of change needed to keep global heating to below two-degrees centigrade (let alone 1.5), we have to prove the reality of the threat at a very personal and material level. Not by waiting until people “catch-it” – fires, floods, food shortages – but by speaking the science clearly, repeatedly and with a passion.

And that translates into how environmentalists and socialists should be relating to Covid-19. We have to learn about the science of the virus, read the conclusions of reports on effective approaches in other countries, and find ways “speak the truth to power” to challenge popular mythology, complacency and most of all Government lies and spin. The Coronavirus requires a system change away from profit and towards human need just as much as does any solution to global heating.

Everyone gets depressed from time to time. Some people very rarely, some much of the time. And then there’s the difference in the depths experienced. Some tendencies are suggested to be genetic, some bio-chemical, some stirred by material conditions. I have been a therapist and in therapy, a social worker and a parent, a teacher and a student, a lover and a hater. I have no qualifications to make heady statements about the causes or effects of depression. I simply experience it like any other human being.

There is much being written about our children becoming more prone to depression, not least because of the knowledge of climate change. I’m certainly in no position to quantify the causes of what appears to be an epidemic as large as the predicted impact of the Coronavirus. For example, at least 1 in 4 young women are suffering identifiable and seriously impacting depression in Britain at any one time, and male suicide is increasing amongst our young. Identification of depression is being recorded in ever larger proportions of younger and younger children.

This cannot be blamed upon we, the disparaged “doom-mongers” of the Climate Movement, although some do. We have had the discussion and tested the theory that doing something, taking action, joining with others to shout-out against Ecocide and Extinction is the best antidote to climate depression.

This is not so much a question of having Hope but Purpose. Hope is as ephemeral as Joy or Happiness. These are each emotional exceptions, momentary sensations that come-and-go and cannot be relied upon. People report moments of pleasure even from inside a prison cell and when hope isn’t present.

Purpose, by contrast, offers some consistency, stability and solidity. Emotions can rise and fall by the hour, day or week, but having a goal, committing to a cause, offers a sense of purpose that can balance the highs and lows.

This is not to say that people prone to depression are vulnerable to being coerced into being recruited into extremist sects or cults. True, the deepest depressions are wholly disabling and require help and support and a safe space well away from the demands of society in crisis. And we all have our vulnerabilities, our Achilles Heel.

But for most of us, depression does not blind us to rational thought even if it may colour perception. We can still perceive the inadequacies of an argument, the lies inside a fraud, the gaps in a theory. When someone says that half of all life on Earth faces extinction, or predicts that global heating is accelerating at such an unprecedented rate that we face societal collapse, the vast majority of human beings, young and old, require a sufficiency of evidence.

So I reject accusations that climate activists are scaremongering, hoodwinking, exploiting, oppressing or grooming the striking school students and young adults. The scientific evidence, best triangulated and double-checked well away from Wikipedia, is as close to absolute as is possible in a universe of no absolutes.

But it may be true that those advocating Hope are indeed hoodwinking us, and therein lies a challenge. Their individualist remedies – turning down the central heating and wearing more layers instead, recycling plastic, using public transport instead of having a car – may make us feel like we’re doing something for the Planet but may just as well make us feel all the more powerless and depressed, as well as less comfortable.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t all do our bit, but even Extinction Rebellion notes that, with an average (always a deeply flawed statistical tool) annual emission of around 7.5 tonnes per person (UK), were we to live a hair-shirt existence in an unheated yurt and picking berries we could not reduce our average below 4.5 tonnes. Why? Because we cannot escape being one of 60+ million people living on the island of Britain. Such is the law of averages.

It is the construct of Society, the sum-total of inter-relations and interactions of human beings, that is the source of the global heating gases that are rapidly increasing global temperatures at a speed and intensity not seen in the past 2 million years (at least). And so a society so damaging has to be reorganised if we are to prevent extinction. The System in which we live cannot and will not continue as it is, in the very near short term.

That is a harrowing and unnerving fact. Whether six years old or sixty, the prospect of the future needing to be like nothing you have experienced, or are familiar with, or are used to is daunting if not depressing. Unless, of course, the current system continues to offer you so little, such discomfort, so little Hope that the prospect of something else and indeed something better than this is truly inspiring.

I’m not suggesting that the Environment and Climate Movement is offering any Pie-in-the-Sky promises. The situation is dire and we shouldn’t be blamed for saying so. It is still the case that the majority of young people are either wholly uniformed or misinformed about the Climate Emergency. Extreme weather conditions are not the source of the depressed emotional climate.

Much of the depression of our current youth is documented as being about current social pressures – body shape, bullying, gangs, academic testing and competition – indeed all the alienation ensured by neoliberal capitalist society, little to do with any predictions of potential climate collapse.

What we can offer is the possibility of another world, a more inclusive, sharing, less pressurised existence. Becoming Carbon-Zero is indeed a daunting challenge but for all but the wealthiest 10% its far better than the alternative of continuing to live as we do now, let alone face the chaos and barbarism of societal collapse. And by recognising just how big a challenge we face we are not offering any level of false Hope, just death-defying Purpose.

Wednesday 4th March 2020

There are a couple of important slogans, nay mantras, that are permeating out from Extinction Rebellion into the entire environment movement. The first, “No More Business As Usual!” and the second, “Beyond Politics”. The ideological base that unites both, I am told, is the impressive and impassioned demand to develop a new system of human society based upon a circular system of thinking corresponding to the natural ecosystems, humans becoming fully integrated back into Nature.

Whilst it takes a great deal of reflection to begin to materially conceive of what such a social and economic system would feel and look like, I very much concur. As someone who uses the Marxist methodology of historical materialism to try to understand the world of humans, this aligns with my own world view. More or less.

We should be collaborative, meeting all human needs without oppression or exploitation. The current global human society is based upon social class, privilege and the lottery of birth that endows some with greater entitlements to life than others. A socialist society, by contrast, is one based upon need not private profit, “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their need”.

Karl Marx, no Guru or Saint, obsessively studied the emergence of Capitalist class society in comparison to previous Feudal through to “Primitive Communist” societies and identified one crucial notion. Capitalism, as differentiated from all previous human societies, ruptured, tore apart, the interaction between humanity and the rest of Nature.

To précis to the point of near-destruction, capitalist techniques of production, ripping people from rural subsistence and into town and city squalor, separating people from contact with raw materials and from any ownership of the final product of their toil, created a “Metabolic Rift” between humanity and Nature. The Earth’s metabolism of which we had for so long been a part, has been torn apart.

We experience the result of the metabolic rift as Alienation, feeling alien from nature’s systems, feeling divorced from and in competition with other human beings, and feeling estranged from ourselves. The domination of property relationships render us in conflict with all, unable to feel secure as a unique identity other than through material symbols of wealth and power, ownership and control, domination and status. Our validity is determined not by simply being but by socially ascribed status.

It is interesting that some in the environment movement react against these feelings simply by saying they don’t care how they’re seen – Prime Minister Johnson may refer to them as “long-haired crusties” (coming from him I wear such a label as a badge of honour) – they will be as they wish, live as they please, and care not a jot as to what others think.

Such a condition is likely to increase alienation and isolation, being, somewhat ironically, a permutation of precisely the individualism they are trying to challenge and end. Individuality and individualism are at opposite ends of the identity continuum, and the self-determination offered by individuality can only be achieved through a system based upon cooperation, mutual trust and universal provision for all.

I come back to the main theme here. The “Beyond Politics” mantra has been skewed, perhaps purposefully by some, to mean no-one in the Movement should use political constructs or “be political’. The “No More Business As Usual” mantra then amplifies the deconstruction of politics by damning all previously existing World Views as being redundant in the face of the sixth mass extinction and climate catastrophe.

And in doing so, it rejects discussion or consideration of social class. Old formulations of how society is constructed should be disregarded. This is a recipe for failure, abject failure, a loss of focus, and a Great Lie to be permitted as to the root cause of the climate emergency. It is not ideas that have created Ecocide and threaten societal collapse, but actions.

Capitalism is an exploitative form of human society that has not been around long, is not the only way humans can live together, and needs to be replaced. Capitalism relies upon social control through stratification for subjugation – Class – and exploitation of all in the human and natural world for the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a tiny minority.

Not all hitherto existing societies have lived like this, offering us a sense that things can be different and better. We should not reject such historical interpretations as redundant. And then, the political formulations that stem from a class interpretation of society cannot be disregarded either.

There are those who wish to prosper, or who have already prospered, under Capitalism. They do not want the system replaced even if they do want the harsher edges reformed to ensure survival of their children. And there are those, like me, who look wider at global humanity and its history and conclude that Capitalism has to be ended and replaced if we and our children’s children are to survive.

Again, crudely put, these are the polls of the political continuum within the environment movement today – the Left and Right wings. Without intending the pun, recent polls have shown both at home and abroad that roughly 20% of citizens care less about climate change (for various ideological reasons or none), 60% are concerned but feel too busy or powerless to do much about it, and consistently, 20% are fully engaged with the impending catastrophe and wish to act to stop it. This, too, reflects the ancient ideological and political spectrum.

So we cannot be “beyond politics” as interpreted by the autonomistic “Beyond Left and Right” ideologues. Ironically, being “beyond politics” is a deeply ideological and political stance. In the here and now, Class society exists and is in control, and Left-wing and Right-wing ideologies exist as a material consequence, and are in constant conflict for influence and power. Consequently, the Movement cannot “accept everyone and every part of everyone”, as directed.

The Far Right (the deep blues) continue to utilise the Climate Emergency as an excuse for white supremacy (“keep out the Global South”), eugenics (climate Change will require the speedy evolution of a new super-human “master race”), Malthusianism (“there are far too many human beings and therefore we should allow billions to die from climate war, drowning, famine and plague with all its religious resonance”) and these ideologues exert their power and control through racism and ultra-nationalism. This is all very apparent and happening right now as a portent of far worse to come.

Meanwhile the “reformist” middle (the rainbow greens, yellows and purples) want “someone to do something” but not so “extreme” as to overthrow the existing entitlements they enjoy. They worry they may have something to loose through total system change despite risking losing everything through climate catastrophe.

The active Left (the Reds) argue for System Change not Climate Change, and are by nature, anti-capitalist. We have a proud history of challenging the exploitation of Nature as well as People. And we know that a classless society based on peace and social justice will offer a much better quality of life for even the wealthier of the Rainbow middle.

We have a clear analysis of how the climate catastrophe came about through the system of Capitalism, not innate human greed or carelessness, and therefore that it can be stopped, in time, and replaced with a social and economic system quite able to correspond with natural ecosystems as well as meet the needs of all humanity (yes, all 12 billion of us – the predicted zenith of population growth).

My own experience is that, currently, the Rainbow People are allowing the Blues to hold sway whilst constantly challenging the Reds to “stop being overtly political”. I refuse, not simply because I demand respect for my chosen identity, but because that way leads to a totalitarian state that will ensure the destruction of all.

And the immediate problem formed of the misinterpretation of “Beyond Politics” is the focus upon denying the Left our voice or even the display our ideas (books, papers, stalls, placards, banners, slogans), whilst the Right, never openly admitting their political alignment and associations, are pandered to and allowed domination in the name of unity. History proves, over and over again, that the Blues, given their space, will devour not only the Reds but the Rainbow and all.

And so I insist upon displaying my political allegiance, my associations, in order firstly to avoid being later accused of hoodwinking or manipulating by subterfuge, and secondly to demand that others do the same. Only in that way we can all be assured that we know the intentions of one another and can build the level of trust and unity essential to preventing global societal collapse.

Tony Staunton

Plymouth

Of course, despite everything, the Media is overloaded with Christmas. There are articles on just about anything and everything that could possible fill column inches with banal and superficial nonsense cheerleading nothing other than consumerism and the “family spend”. So it could be refreshing to consider articles suggesting “lean” and “sustainable” “GREEN” festivities.

This morning’s radio nonsense was a case in point. The BBC’s “You and Yours” dedicated three-quarters of an hour to pursuing a carbon-zero Christmas. It could have been essential listening. But the Great Lie being carefully put across was apparent from the very first sentence: “We use more plastic during the Christmas period than any other time of the year and waste enough wrapping paper to stretch from Earth to the Moon.”

Whilst the statistics are probably accurate, the “we” offers the continuation of the propaganda that blames us all equally for global heating and obscures if not denies the lack of choice most of us have. Anyone who finds it essential to budget carefully to the point of penny-pinching on the Christmas presents has long known one thing. Common commodities on sale through the year are suddenly “gift-wrapped” and over-priced in the lead-up to Year End. A branded bath oil and its brother, shampoo, are produced in smaller than usual rubberised tubes, then nestled in huge moulded plastic display boxes, the printed outers then covered in thick see-through plastic lids complete with plastic bows and nylon ribbons. The packaging uses-up dozens of times the natural resources of the cleaning products themselves and will remain as pollutants for hundreds of times the time.

We could buy twice the grams of the same stuff for a fifth of the price were it not that we are emotionally coerced and guilt-tripped into giving proper gifts to be unwrapped from under the tree. Oh and yes, the usual packaging is removed from the shelves through the twelve weeks of Christmas.

It is the packaging companies, worldwide, who produce this garbage to end-up in land-fill for generations or as toxic fumes and micro-particulates from an incinerator chimney. Its all just a money-making racket.

We are not all equally responsible. The potential for a boycott of all packaging by all 50 million UK consumers, let alone the billions of us worldwide is far more difficult to organise and sustain than simply outlawing the production of such profligate waste. If we can ban CFCs we should be able to ban the non-degradable plastics. It just requires political will.

Of course, this argument can be extended to all manner of pollutants. It is quite possible to ban all extraction of carbon-based fuels. Leave the oil and gas and coal in the ground. Such action is far more urgent than anything to do with plastics or tree-planting or re-wilding. It the absence of carbon emissions that will lead to a carbon-zero economy and have any chance of preventing societal breakdown and our own extinction.

The question begged is what will it take to make the laws required to curb the waste producers? The answer, after very little contemplation, has to be nothing less than a revolution. The capitalist system of competition and short-term profit simply won’t allow the producers to change their ways. To do so would be for them to go to the wall because someone else will be there waiting in the wings to take-over to make a fast buck.

The general ideas raised by this Christmas banter are unworthy of greater exploration. It may well allow individuals to feel better about themselves (and even save money in these austere times) to recycle last years Christmas cards and offer second-hand gifts wrapped in yesterday’s newspapers. But it won’t go anywhere near to having any impact at all on the still-accelerating levels of global heating and Ecocide.

Which is why the entire discussion is a distraction from the very urgent real challenges facing us. In fact, all this waste-less use-less individualism is just one more element of the climate denial propaganda constantly churned out on behalf of the producers. They advertise relentlessly to sell their must-have stuff and at the same time demand we feel guilty about having it. It’s a win-win strategy for the profiteers.

It’s not an either-or, but the amount of time spent individually on cutting-down on plastic waste and fuel-use needs to be balanced by the amount of time spent on challenging this polluting, wasteful and anti-human system that is responsible for the global destruction now upon us all. It may just be that buying a bath set, ready-wrapped and whisked out of the Pound Shop saves enough time to join the Non-Violent Direct Action outside Barclays Bank or BP! We really do need to get focussed upon exactly what actions are needed to save the World.

Just as we have seen scientific evidence of a number of climate Tipping Points having been reached across the world, so we need to recognise the climate catastrophes already happening. Armageddon is not a date in a diary. Societal collapse is not predictable according to any calendar either.

Climate science is detailing the historic degradation of the environment and modelling potential futures with growing accuracy. Ice melt, methane release, slowdown in ocean currents, record temperatures, mega-hurricanes, all signs and symptoms of climate collapse.

Through a similar process we can map the fragmentation of human society. Models of possible futures tend to be created by including as many known variables as possible and seeing how they inter-relate to produce a new dynamic.

So the understanding of human history becomes vital to our recognition of our potential futures. And there’s the first challenge. History is subject to interpretation to an extent that scientific fact is not. There is a “People’s History” and a “Victor’s History” written of any one event or era.

For example, established history suggests that the First World War was “won” by the British Allies and Germany “defeated”, whilst the people’s history would argue that mutiny and revolution prevented the national ruling classes from continuing their genocidal barbarism (only to reignite the carnage by 1939).

Through the same ideological tensions the history of climate change is explained away by Establishment historians as the ebbs and flows of natural forces, redacting, censoring or denying the early scientific observations of the human-made climatic impact of carbon emissions offered from the 1880’s onwards.

Nevertheless, we have sufficient independent record of how society works to be able to predict a lot about how society collapses. The desertification of ancient Mesopotamia was caused, in large part, through water wars that restricted and diverted access to supplies. The Anasazi, ancestors of the Pueblo Indians in today’s USA, over-used their natural resources and became all but extinct through drought and famine by the 1300’s.

A recent model developed by a team at Ruskin University suggested that global human society will collapse in less than three decades due to catastrophic food shortages. Another, by the John Hopkins Centre, modelled that society as we know it would collapse within 13 days of any catastrophic event: a pandemic, Yellowstone exploding, or an exchange of nuclear weapons. These are the predictions of catastrophe most advertised by the more sympathetic climate commentators.

But it would seem that many of the indicators of social collapse are already appearing. Its more a slow burn than a sudden event. What, in fact, are we observing?

Primarily a definite polarisation between peoples within most nations: the rich getting richer, poor getting poorer; the growth of far-right ideology and activity set against mass movements challenging poverty and exploitation; accelerating growth in fundamentalist and absolutist quasi-religions in all their guises; the fast decline in effectiveness of antibiotics; descent of previously coherent communities into obsessive conspiracy theories damning everything from life-saving immunisation to taxation for social infrastructure.

And mass strikes, protests and anti-Establishment manifestations across the world – Colombia, Chilé, Spain, Iraq, France, Hong Kong…

This is the stuff of the breakdown of social cohesion. Human history would suggest, from whichever perspective, that any shortage of resource or threat to stability quickly results in conflict. As the socialist, Karl Marx observed, “the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle”. And war between nation states is often the answer by the existing ruling class to any movement for their overthrow from within.

As we hurtle, condemned by our current rulers, into runaway climate collapse, the precursors of global social collapse appear ever more apparent. And yet, superficially, life goes on. Exactly what the Tipping Points look like for social turmoil may be hidden or obscure, but history does give us clues. Current global tensions suggest we are closer than would at first appear.

So what is to be done? Struggle, of course. Whilst it may seem impossible for the change needed to save society – leaving all existing fossil fuels in the ground and ending subsidies for carbon industries and transferring all production to zero-carbon technologies within the next ten years – our human history is full of examples of such dramatic change. Not without cost, of course.

The only alternative to struggle is the current and accelerating descent into barbarism. In a world economy based upon greed, corruption, competition, gangsterism and exploitation, the fragmentation of societies will only encourage the survival-of-the-fittest mentality that will see armed gangs controlling neighbourhoods and mass immiserisation a lá Mad Max. Those of us who understand that the future is not written and that we can make it better have to get active: throw ourselves at the task of survival with a gusto and that Extinction Rebellion-style of humility and sacrifice. After all, the alternative is far too ghastly to contemplate.

It may be only coincidence that, on the day President Trump arrived in London for the NATO Summit, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, warned of the “point of no return” for the Climate. He insisted that the political efforts of world leaders to stop catastrophic climate change have been “utterly inadequate”. He stated, “The point of no return is no longer over the horizon. It is in sight and hurtling towards us”.

Tomorrow, political delegates from over 200 countries will meet in Madrid to refine and enact the Paris Agreement of 2015. Too little and much too late. Meanwhile, those same leadership groups will meet within the remit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to agree higher military spending and threaten more warfare from South America to the Arctic Circle, Kashmir to the South China Seas, not to mention the maintenance of their continuing decimation of Afghanistan and Libya.

It should not be a secondary consideration for climate activists to challenge and oppose NATO and it’s imperialist wars. Even if the human tragedy and horror could be put to one side, the impact of war on global heating is phenomenal:

• the climate change impact of huge military bases around the world is considerable locally, regionally and globally. For example, it is estimated that US military consumes 395,000 gallons of oil daily alone. The entire world military establishment is wholly dependent upon and predatory for carbon-based fuels.

• The US military emits more global warming gases than the total emissions from 200 countries across the globe. Securing and deploying oil across the globe to the fuel-greedy hummers, jets and drones has become a growing preoccupation of NATO military strategists.

• The military is not just a prolific user of oil, it is one of the central pillars of the global fossil-fuel economy. Today whether it is in the Middle East, the Gulf, or the Pacific, modern-day military deployment is about controlling oil-rich regions and defending the key shipping supply routes that carry half the world’s oil and sustain our consumer economy.

• the environmental damage caused by war is not limited to climate change and CO2 emissions. It has been estimated that 20% of all environmental degradation and ecocide around the world is due to military and other related activities.

• Global military expenditure now exceeds $200,000,000,000,000 a year (that’s two-hundred trillion US dollars). When the UK government allocates $49 billion (£36b) to the Ministry of Defence but only £1.5 billion to the Department of Energy & Climate Change, it is clear where its priorities lie. Just think what could be done with that cash for renewables and a Just Transition to a carbon-zero economy.

We should be able to say No to War on environmental grounds alone. Perhaps the reticence of activists to join with the XR Peace Movement or other anti-war groups is a tendency towards seeing Climate as a single-issue. Or, conversely, that the mantra that “climate overwhelms all other issues” obscures the fact that all other issues are entwined within the world’s climate.

President Trump has insisted that climate change is a “hoax” and at the same time is demanding increased military expenditure by all NATO allies. His withdrawal of the USA from the international climate agreements and the treaties against the proliferation of nuclear weapons denotes a clear agenda of conflict over sustainability, the accumulation of private wealth and power rather than collective human survival.

Perhaps, at least emotionally, it is easier to focus the practical needs for tree-planting, recycling, investment in renewables and even the comparative abstractions of a Green New Deal than it is to challenge the Military.

But war is no side-issue. In fact, the system of imperialism is at the core of the very processes that are destroying the Planet. Imperialism is the most concentrated manifestation of the competition that is the motor of Capitalism. The battle for resources, both natural and human, results routinely in warfare. But this is not because of Human Nature or any human DNA that condemns us to a fate of self-inflicted extinction.

Huge periods of human history, entire eras encompassing small clans through to huge civilisations have managed in conditions forged by purposefully minimalising conflict and maximising mutually beneficial trade and inter-mingling. There is nothing either biological or God-given about fighting, competing or enslaving – the system that we find ourselves born into tends to determine our behaviours. The current system of Capitalism is only one human system amongst many possibilities.

Of course, the struggle for survival and then for identity can lead us into conflict with others. We should retain the right to self-defence against predatory threats from others if only to prevent the descent into barbarism. But it is only the false construction of nation states and notions of racial hierarchies that combine to create the industrialised warfare we see today.

As an example, NATO is neither defensive nor just. It is an undemocratic alliance of the most powerful private corporate interests aimed at carving-up and accumulating the world’s natural resources and controlling its’ peoples.

This returns us to the fundamental issue. Climate degradation is fast-accelerating the scramble for declining resources. The catastrophes currently overwhelming entire countries in the Global South are just the precursor of social upheavals soon to hit the rest of us. The devastation from war could quite easily overwhelm us well in advance of the catastrophe of ecocide.

We have to challenge the drive to war and force the change from military to civilian expenditure. The money is clearly there to fund a carbon-zero economy by 2025, yet the System won’t allow it. That is the real issue. So today we need to say Not War, No to NATO, because that’s what the powerful are discussing. And everyday we have to enact the practical conclusions from the recognition that we need system change to minimise catastrophic climate change.

“Hypocrites are welcome in Extinction Rebellion”, says XR’s founder, Roger Hallam. For the record, I like this statement. I am in favour of listening to others, of being polite and empathetic, and practicing humility. We are all full of contradictions. And I’m clear that compassion has a vital role to play in the process of revolution.

It may be primarily a religious statement to “forgive us our sins”, yet in the material world of challenge and struggle any notion that we can live either a benign or a perfect life is ludicrous. Consequently, too harsh a judgement on each other is nothing other than destructive.

Being a hypocrite may be summed up as saying one thing whilst doing the opposite, or vice versa. Such a judgement upon another’s behaviour starts from a presumption that we are in charge of our own circumstances. In fact, as individuals we do not create our own environment and have only limited choices, some of which we’re ignorant of, absent of information and knowledge that may open the doors of choice.

There is, nevertheless, a place for judgement. Everything we do affects those around us. Even hermits have an impact upon the environment, not least by their abstention from helping humanity to tend rather than destroy Nature. It is also the case that our ideas have an impact – they inform and determine all our actions. Our thoughts affect others.

So I’m hesitant about the Extinction Rebellion’s mantra of being non-judgemental, only because the “Rule” appears much misunderstood, a bit like the associated Rule of being “beyond politics”. Both are quite liberally used to shut down debate, hopefully quite the opposite of the original intention. We are trying to save humanity and all life on earth from extinction at the hands of human-made climate catastrophe.

How do we agree about what to do? Judgements about each other’s opinions are important, because every belief corresponds to actions, and every action moves towards anti-human or pro-human results.

Being non-judgmental must surely mean preventing pre-judgement – assumptions made with insufficient evidence – and at the same time acknowledging the universal vulnerabilities of being human. Before damning someone else have you taken sufficient time to look at yourself? And in any case, is damnation essential…for what outcome?

I damn Fascism on the basis of evidence of the Holocaust, damn racism on the basis of it’s vicious denial of fact, damn sexism and homophobia for reason of their denial of equality and human rights, and disablism for the lack of collective provision for a common humanity. These judgements are in my mind essential for human survival.

We must therefore argue with each other about the small “p” political direction of travel, not only to clarify our own ideas but to test possible actions before carrying out possibly negative or destructive activities. XR’s dismissal of Party Politics as having not worked for sustainable development and the protection of the environment – surely a factual statement – doesn’t then require us to be beyond having political opinions or debate.

In this period of General Election in the United Kingdom, political debate and argument with all its pedantic word-play and double-speak hypocrisy, is vital. My observation so far is of a distinct paucity in the ability and readiness to debate without malice. Sides have been taken despite or without attention to facts or alternative ways of seeing. The cry of “hypocrite’ has become over-used as a tool of self-protection and condemnation of “the other”. This has all the resonance of a society scared, defensive and descending towards individual survival mode. Cowering from the threats of predation, hardship and climate catastrophe, we are repelling all borders and dismissing all those outside our chosen mini-clan.

We appear to have dismissed Reason as well as reasonable behaviour. What is needed now more than ever is robust, fulsome and informed debate about what is to be done, and yet we are being denied the atmosphere in which this can happen. It appears we have been set one-against-the-other by a set of contrived hostilities that divides us all and allows the current state of affairs to continue unchallenged.

If we’re all hypocrites then Truth is of no value and debate is without purpose. Choose your bunker and slam shut the door. The alternative? To recognise that we would like to live in a world where we do not have to be hypocrites, where we can live meaningfully without destroying the environment, in a harmony with each other which offers self-determination through social discourse and negotiation.

In which case, we’re not hypocrites at all. By acting to negate the negation we are being true to ourselves: living in an oppressive society but at all times challenging that oppression; needing to work to survive but challenging all exploitation of people and natural resources; having to shop for food but boycotting key pollutants; surviving in a carbon-based economy but seeking-out alternative futures. That’s Life.

Ultimately it is in the nature of the Capitalist System to compete, exploit, oppress and go to war. Challenging someone’s pro-Capitalist views is not to condemn the individual but to object to being led into a cul-de-sac. Any reliance on Capitalism as a system able to prevent the coming Climate Catastrophe is bound to fail – to rely on the carbon industries to end carbon-use in time to save the environment is beyond belief. We must practice political thought and use informed judgement to argue with each other. Only through debate can we agree the way forward. To prevent argument is indeed the greatest hypocrisy.

Last weekend we saw a large fascist rally in Poland and a military coup in Bolivia. There is a deep and growing polarisation in societies across the world and here. Deepening poverty and incredible wealth at each ends of the economic spectrum are mirrored by the same ideological extremes. On the far-right the growth of identity politics, the falsehoods of social media bubbles, altogether increasing bigotry, prejudice, discrimination and abuse. Underneath this is a global push to undermine the flimsy and quite superficial administrations of liberal democracies towards totalitarian autocratic control by super-rich oligarchs.

This sounds like conspiracy theory. Indeed, there can be a thin line between “plans” and “conspiracies”. In the main, conspiracy theories are concocted by right-wing libertarians antipathetic to State administration or control of any kind and paranoid about any and all restrictions on their chosen beliefs and feelings. At the same time we all experience phases or moments of paranoia, not least because life includes adversity.

A general problem is the tendency to interpret and describe the world from one’s own and singular experience. In truth it is all but impossible to extrapolate any general theory of the World from our personal perceptions. Especially in a hugely stratified class society, the separation of experience by the matrix of access to resources, education, communication, media and world views makes us all prisoners of our social circumstance.

There is another reason for closed mindedness. As Karl Marx observed, human beings are inherently conservative. Once our necessities are more-or-less met we tend to hold-on to our comforts and resist any change that may threaten our equilibrium. Not only do we defend our hovels and stale bread against the threat of homelessness and starvation, we put-up with limited liberties rather than risk violence and incarceration.

The human motivations towards social inclusion and self-determination are in constant tension. Submitting ourself to the greater good can conflict with personal desires to do exactly what we want. The entwined dynamic of the requirement for survival and identity – both essential needs – underwrite all human behaviours. But the human mind allows for people to believe whatever we like and therein lies the tension. The self-determination of one person, whether in a state of delusion or prescience, may require the subjugation or death of another.

Ultimately, an inclusive human society cannot manage an “anything goes” approach. The tolerance of the wide and broad spectrum of human behaviours can only be sustained by agreed boundaries to what is acceptable. In essence, denial of voice (identity) or life (survival) denote these boundaries. We tend to feel upset by and regale against calls for genocide, and express discomfort at any governance that requires the incarceration or death of others. Such political boundaries are very fluid and impermanent and mostly dependent upon our own perception of personal safety and survival.

Society can switch from tolerance to repression overnight, either when a majority feels threatened from without or from within. Survival tends to trump identity. Humanity has lived under ghastly repression for long periods. In totalitarian societies minorities continually give-up the dominance of their survival-mechanism, determining that their identity – freedom of thought and action – is more important than their own survival. People choose to die for their beliefs.

We have learnt that there has to be general agreement about social boundaries in order for any society to remain stable. Totalitarian governance is inherently unstable and requires extensive and expensive forces of mass repression of dissonance, disagreement and potential revolt. The trick of any ruling class – by its nature a minority of the population – is to maintain their rule over the masses without too much resistance.

Class society has developed quite exquisite nuances of structures that can be perceived as libertarian whilst markedly confining behaviours and identities. Successive ruling classes have made experiences of poverty, exploitation and inequality “natural” and “normal”. Indeed, such propaganda has normalised racism and sexism, such as the “scientific Darwinism” that apparently explains white supremacy, or the false psychology that makes women more sensitive and therefore vulnerable than men, and so requiring male protection and dominance.

The tension between day-to-day experiences and the dominant social propaganda gives rise to a sense of Anomie, an element of alienation, where we are told we are comfortable “enough” yet feel constantly out-of-sorts, lacking something vital, but can’t say what it is. In the heartbeat of history there are periods when scales fall from eyes, when the false propaganda becomes see-through, when the Emperor has no clothes.

We are in such a period. The Status Quo of super-rich amidst mass poverty has become apparent, not least because of new technologies that allow most of us to see the entire human world and develop deeper world views. Those who wish can look outside their close-horizoned protective bubble. We have access to far more information and to so much more social contact with other cultures and peoples than ever before. We also have refreshed knowledge of Nature, the natural environment, and the impact of the exploitation of natural resources on climate and ecosystems.

As a result, the ruling classes, wholly dependent on exploitation of both Nature and Humanity, have to become more repressive in their determination to hold on to their wealth and power. This can explain the re-emergence of far-right governments and fascist parties. It also explains the “imperialist” interference of more powerful nations into the structures and governance of less powerful countries. These are not conspiracies, they are planned interventions by a few small grouping of humans against the mass of others.

They mobilise those who still cling on to their propaganda of “deserving rich” and “undeserving poor”, and wage a war of ideas against those of us who crave liberty, inclusivity and the freedom of self-determination. And when those ideas aren’t enough, they provoke street violence and stage military coups to smash dissent, such as Last weekend’s fascist rallies in Poland or the military coup in Bolivia.

The dynamics and tensions of class society also explains the strength and power of the climate deniers. Capitalism depends upon carbon industries, indeed the system is intrinsically dependent of fossil fuels. Should the demand for carbon-zero production become dominant the current ruling classes will be fundamentally threatened and undermined. They have already spent tens of billions denying human-made global heating.

In direct consequence, the struggle for carbon-zero – to protect Nature and prevent mass extinction of life and even Humanity itself – is nothing short of a class struggle. The international environmental movement itself is in tension between internal forces of groupings allied to the survival of Capitalism (and, in essence, notions of Nation, class privilege, male and White supremacy) and those of us committed to System Change for survival, human progress and ecological protection.

Looking back at centuries of warfare across Europe and, indeed, the World, the question is bigger, can there be a commonality between all people? Can we unite? We have experienced five or six thousand years of class society. Layers of social strata measured by individual access to the essential ingredients for sustaining life: food, warmth, shelter, safety, companionship (if not Love). Ever since the production of a surplus we have been separated by social class, private ownership and the associated power to control the masses.

The lottery of birth based upon DNA kinship and early years survival rates, geography, ecology and climate meld together to determine our life chances and longevity. Spreading over us all, like a quilt cover on a cold morning, has been the handed-down culture of our Clan. Recognising the matrix of birthrights and birth rites requires acknowledgment, from whichever ethnicity or creed we are part of, that we are born into societies where some people have more than others. More access to the means to survive and prosper, to learn and grow.

Protestant Christians may insist this state of affairs to be their God’s Will and that we should accept our place in the scheme of things, but Marxists would condemn all inequality and the injustices that flow from Birth privileges: exploitation, oppression, enslavement and incarceration. Oh, and for good measure, inherited wealth. All humans should be born equal. Importantly, social class relations are human-made and can therefore be dismantled by humanity.

In my naivety I have never fully understood how people put-up with the class relations that I’ve lived through, let alone the far worse injustices of peasant, agrarian or newly-industrialising societies. The common feature of all permutations of class society has been the absolute violence of the ruling elite in putting-down and administering pain against all and any who challenge their power and privilege. If ideas are generated that may challenge the status quo they will use Church and State to damn the dissidents. Ideas matter.

Civil war, not just inter-clan war, is the common experience of class society. Civil war usually goes hand-in-hand with nation-on-nation warfare. Crucially, war requires those waging it to conscript many others to their Cause. On the Eve of the 100th commemoration day of the Armistice that ended the First World War, the example of millions of people born with little or nothing, placed on two sides of an imaginary contour to stab, dismember, explode or maim their peers across the way, offers a singular imagery for exploring class society.

That war was waged between a few families (mostly interrelated) of the super-rich. There was a “band of warring brothers” impatient with each other’s counter claims on their birthright inheritance of land, wealth, power and peoples, ready to unleash material hell on tens of millions of fellow humans. In one sense it was down to who owns land where oil could be sucked up from below. In another, it was the pure avarice of people born and raised to believe they had a God given right to do whatever they wished with anything and anyone in the material world.

At the bottom end of the stratified society of each arbitrarily drawn “Nation State” of Europe and Russia, those born into slums, devoid of proper nutrition, sanitation, fresh water, warmth, opportunity or longevity, were told by their “betters” to go to war. And they did. Yes, the Rich sent their sons too, such was the power of the propaganda. But the rich, the very wealthy and even the tiny strata of aspiring middle classes had reason to go to war, at least in the hope of picking up the spoils of victory – Wealth and Power.

The poor and the working of the working classes had nothing to gain. Just more misery.

Contemporary political discourse insists that the working class gained materially from the plundering, pillaging, raping and genocide of Britain’s military against people’s of the East, the South, Asia and Arabia. But such analysis only compares like-with-like, not what could have been. Had there been no war, had instead the Great Unrest of 1912-14 – where workers joined together and rose like lions against the tyranny of Capitalist exploitation and poverty – won through, a very different world would have been created, based upon equality, peaceful and just trade and common wealth.

When standing in silence to commemorate the war dead, today’s Establishment will be sure to hide the fact, the Truth, that the First World War ended because of working class revolution. The rich and powerful families of Europe, self-proclaimed as divine Monarchy, did not complete their battles. Neither side won nor lost, hence the second world imperialist war was rekindled in 1939. Revolution, spreading from Russia to Germany and even Britain from 1917 saw army conscripts rebel against not only their captains and generals but the ideology of the war. Revolution stopped the War.

The scales fell from the eyes of those rotting in blooded mudbath trenches, threatened with either death for mutiny or death from battle, led by plum-tongued autocrats exuding class privilege and absolutist power. There was no justice, no benefit, no reason for the working man to shoot other working men of another Nation State, itself a contrived set of arbitrary boundaries determined by the power and avarice of it’s self-serving rulers.

In 1917, we, workers of the World, joined together and rose up against our common international enemy. Capital. That tiny class of avaricious humans set upon accumulating ever-increasing private wealth and power from the eternal immiserisation of the masses.

We fought the revolution for Peace, Bread and Land. Ideas of freedom, fraternity and sorority, emancipation, equality and self-determination. Class war spread and continued throughout the 1920’s. Fourteen imperialist armies were needed to invade Russia, assisted by Western Capitalist-funded White Army counter-revolutionary armies from within to break, smash, slaughter and defeat the Russian Revolution. The revolutionary ideas as well as social organisation across the world were ruthlessly crushed by the 1930’s.

Private-not-public health services ensured that millions would die from pestilence and influenza through the ‘20’s – more than ever died in the First World War. And speculative greed of the Rich on the scale of the 2008 banking crisis ensured the Crash of ‘29 and the destitution of the many as a prelude to renewed conscription in ‘39.

Despite the ghastly poverty of the 20’s and 30’s – lending a lie to the notion of western workers benefiting from the bosses plunder of resources from the Global South – workers were once again prepared to go to War for their Bosses. The lessons of the First World War appeared ignored or forgotten. Well, not quite.

The class-based Battle of Ideas was once again vital to war preparations. On our side, workers crossed national barriers to join in the fight against fascism across Southern Europe, seeking to protect democracy and any semblance of workers rights. Bosses, scared of workers power, were happy to allow totalitarian thugs to take control of their State machine in order to protect and even enhance Capitalist exploitation.

By the mid-thirties the arguments were well advanced inside the Ruling Class – the majority of the British Royal family sided with their cousins in Germany in supporting the power of the Nazis – Hitler’s fascist Party – in waging war to quell the power of the working class.

Many German workers were bribed and fooled by hopes of the end of Austerity and a new and peaceful millennia. The groups of German workers who fought against fascism were divided and crushed. The British working class weren’t about to give-up what little democracy they had fought and died for in order to return to totalitarian barbarism. They knew their bosses wanted to plunder, using the sacrifice of the workers to win new territories, natural resources and oil, but at the same time knew that a defeat at the hands of the Nazis would mean even worse servitude.

We had no choice but to sign-up once again. This time not for the absurd notions of patriotism, xenophobia and nationalism that had broken working class resistance in 1914. No, this time we died in our millions for ideas of Freedom and Social Justice. We also recognised the lies and propaganda of pretend-democrats. By 1944 the mutinies against the genocidal orders of the ruling class generals had begun again across the armies of both sides. In Britain, the Etonian senior Tory MP, Quintin Hogg, warned in 1943, ‘If you don’t give the people social reform, they will give you social revolution.’

For a while the ruling class acceded to offering limited reforms – a limited National Health Service, affordable democratically owned and managed council housing, nationalised utilities offering water so cheap it could not be charged for, and towards full-employment. By the 1970’s the international Boss Class had reunited, more or less, to complain amongst themselves that their profit rates were declining whilst the common wealth of the people was improving. This signalled creeping socialism, not competitive Capitalism. Something had to be done. They clawed the reforms back, finding a myriad of ways to extract the cash from the Tax Purse back into their private pockets. Legislation for privatisation and Austerity was imposed by their brothers in the State machinery to demand total freedom for competition and accumulation – a Free Market.

The far-right economics of Neoliberalism was perpetrated not through outright warfare but slight-of-hand propaganda, identified as Glasdnost in Eastern Europe and Russia, and the equivalent “opening-up” of “equal opportunities, a reduction of formal oppression, in the West. The price of such Freedom would be “Perestroika”, restructuring the State and the economy to dismantle the social safeguards and infrastructure that regulated and restricted exploitation and private accumulation of wealth.

So here we are in UK 2019: the return of rickets, schools scrabbling for books; millions in homes unfit for human habitation and overcharged by exploitative private landlords; a re-privatising NHS unable to manage the demands of a working class made sick by poverty and unsafe working practices; the exclusion, persecution and scapegoating of people of non-white skins and minority cultures; the rehabilitation of commonplace domestic abuse. Exploitation and poverty on levels not seen since the 1930’s.

So why aren’t we all joined together in common revolt against the very obvious, and historically informed, injustice and inequalities of 2019? Well, the Ruling Class are trying to use nationalism, xenophobia, sexism, racism and religion to once again bind us to their side and their ideology of privilege, power-and-control. The current rage at their Austerity exploitation is as an open revolt in many countries, and seething and bubbling inside the working classes across Britain. Should we appear to be getting seriously organised against the Ruling Class, as we were in 1912-13, 1917-19, 1926, 1936-8, 1943-46, 1973-4 , 1982-4, 1997-2001, 2011-13, they will revert to their absolute power-tool of open warfare both home and abroad.

There is no understanding of today’s world without an understanding of the history that made it. As Karl Marx observed, the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle. We cannot talk or dream of a better tomorrow without learning the lessons of what came before. And it is impossible to look at our society without recognising that the benefit and indeed survival of one class is entirely determined by the detriment and sacrifice of the other.

The interests of the Capitalist Class, the owners of natural resources and all production, are diametrically opposed to the interests of those who toil in their offices and factories to turn those natural resources into the products they design in order to extract the maximum in profits. They wage a class war against us daily, sometimes cleverly but often through sheer brute force.

There is a continuous battle of beliefs and ideology. The class struggle includes the battle of ideas. Working class consciousness has to become clear and collective once again. We have to finally understand that we must unite as a Class, bury our false divisions in order to fight for our children and grandchildren, take over the means of production for need not profit, sustainability not climate collapse, and wage Revolution.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/xlyy91r9arr46sn/wwi.devon.bbc.mp4/file

(Strikes in the First World War in Devon)

Part of the onslaught of post-World War Two western capitalism has been the privatisation of the individual. By the 1980’s, consumerism, managerialism, post-modernism in academia and neoliberalism in politics and economics provided a three-dimensional onslaught against notions of collectivism and community. In the United Kingdom, the Great Miners Strike of 1984-5 provides a useful historical fulcrum as the point of the turn of society away from commonality and shared welfare. Prime Minister Thatcher’s declaration summed-up the ideological assault: “there is no such thing as society”.

The People of the UK were the subject of a test-tube experiment for a specific model of neoliberalism. Whilst in Germany, the Berlin Wall was to fall and the consequent reunification required continued State investment in health and welfare, and in France the expectation of State-funded infrastructure stayed strong, In the UK the demolition of the Welfare Principle was the order of the day and the far-Right dogma of “small State” fast-tracked privatisation.

Privatisation not only of all utilities, transport, housing, social care for the elderly and drip-by-drip marketisation of the National Health Service, but privatisation also of the People. The State may still help “hard-working people” but would give no succour to the “underserving poor” or self-abusing sick, now to be vilified by a fearful population. You are now alone, your welfare and destiny completely down to you.

You may have had the luck to buy a house but in your old age would have to sell it again to fund your care. You may have worked all your life but would be stuck in your house, isolated and alone through your final years unless you had paid heaviy towards a private pension – the State Pension would become the lowest (by far) in Europe.

Little wonder that mental ill-health increased and society became defensive, wary of others and deeply competitive for scarce resources. Of course, we sought the natural experience of joining because humans are gregarious by nature. The clan of the football match would unite for 2 hours and then disperse. The music festival would allow for a manic celebration of being together “en-masse” but as a testy and wicked exception to the rule of privacy and reserve. The rapidly expanding gap between rich and poor would ensure a deeply polarised social life with no chance of shared community.

Today we are certainly not “all in this together”. One significant outcome of this has been the fragmentation of ways of seeing. History, politics and philosophy heavily censored inside the school curriculum and segregated to ensure no holistic understanding. Consequently, people have become more self-reliant upon how they interpret the world around them. This apparent freeing-up of thinking belies the reality of deepening confusion and anomie, or in Marxist terms, Alienation. We are less in touch with or coherent about our relationship to the natural world, the people around us, and our inner selves.

A meeting last night highlighted this for me. The guest speaker offered a method for understanding why the climate emergency is happening, from a perspective of historical materialism: to understand the human world today we have to understand the history of how we got here. The audience of 25 had, almost to a person, a seperate and individual interpretation of human history. Each had a different idea of both the cause and the solution.

One person felt passionately that only when each individual reattuned to Nature in the heart could we solve the climate crisis. Another blamed the Abrahamic religious books that had falsely interpreted human being’s relationship with Nature fo the past 5,000 years. Someone else was certain that the crisis would end-up with totalitarian autocracy controlling all humanity, and yet another suggested that people with Autistic Spectrum Conditions were most likely to be right-wing individualists ready to undermine any collective response to the Climate Emergency. (I must add that these description are each a shallow summary of the more complex statements they offered, each too long to give full credit to here).

My observation was that we were mostly wallowing around struggling to make some sense of our current society. Our privatisation, the individualist doctrine of the Age, had led us to fester in our own living spaces behind closed doors, making-up patterns of thinking devoid of much debate or scrutiny. Indeed, the meeting was stultified in terms of open and confident debate and shared discourse. We’ve lost the confidence to argue as well as to listen openly and be ready to think again. This is not a criticism of the people in the room but an example of how detached from one-another the prevailing ideology of individualism has made us.

I was reminded of the Practice Nurse who I had chatted with in my doctor’s surgery. I was in for an innoculation, it being the chest infection time of year. She prepared the needle whilst arguing against all forms of immunisation, not only on the basis that the ingredient lubricant, aluminium, would cause me to have Alzheimers in later life, but that vaccines were part of a corporate conspiracy to control the population.

This was not the first debate we had enjoyed over the years, knowing each other of old as politically vocal. She had long-ago declared herself a Flat-Earth protagonist and we had oft-debated whether the moon landings were real, humans beings controlled by a lizard-race, or whether the NHS was of benefit or a curse upon the working class.

Me, a Marxist, she a right-wing libertarian, would find little to agree upon. As the needle pierced my skin, she injected the fluid of the “Night-Watchmen State” she despised, but felt no pang of hypocrisy in earning her pay from the taxes she deplored. We all have to earn a living. Because the human mind is so complex it is quite possible to think anything you like. There is always a battle of ideas in any human society.

By the end of last night’s meeting my head was in a spin about how we can ever unite such dislocated minds back together sufficiently to act in unity to prevent our own extinction. Thatcher’s anti-social Post-Modernism, originally Althussar’s concocted thesis against Marxism, has done it’s job. We only have individual narrative from which to live. The collective experience is irrelevant. And in their wise revolt against the oppression of closed Party ideologies and dogma, individuals have shredded any shared method for interpreting the world around them.

In the climate debates I remain amazed at how many people feel earthly salvation an impossibility to the point of resignation to the End of Humankind, the Will of the Universe or their chosen God, and their private descent into small worlds of close horizons and numbing palliatives. The privatisation of the individual under neoliberal Capitalism has demanded we despise ourselves.

I reject such hopelessness as both unnecessary and uninformed. As I said on the night, all 24 of us in the room were keen enough to seek understanding of the world around us, so why should we, for one moment, think that the rest of humanity isn’t. All human beings think, question, wonder and seek answers. We talked as mass revolts continue across the world: Chile, Catalonia, Porto Prince, the Lebanon, Iraq, Hong Kong. And seven million people had taken action to protest the inaction of the climate emergency throughout the last month. We can unite and fight with common cause.

We have to reconnect. We have to rebuild community and commonality. There is more that unites than divides despite our tendency to make-up an infinite variety of interpretations of the reality we experience. In the end we live in one world, divided by a ruling ideology that demands we see human nature as competitive, avaricious, violent and individualistic. But that’s just how those who choose to live like that have raised us to think. We are not all Earth-killers, those who are just want us to think we are. As Karl Marx wrote, the ruling ideas of any society are the ideas of the ruling class. It stands to reason.

The General Election campaign begins across the United Kingdom today. It is already the most acrimonious, divisive and vicious public contest since the Second World War. Little wonder. The divisions are not simply, not even, party political. The divide between rich and poor is so vast so as to be almost unfathomable. The levels of racism have been whipped into mindless frenzy. The deniers of any climate emergency taunt and threaten we who have concerns. And the tribalism of support or disdain for the European Union suggests a level of political illiteracy difficult to comprehend.

But Britain wants to be calm again, say political commentators. Dr Thereza Kapelos, a lecturer in political philosophy at Birmingham University, explains the tensions by the observation that we are more allowed to express our emotions these days. Yet the emotionality is dismissed as irrelevant to the scientific objectivity of political debate. Voters are tended to be treated as if they are children having tantrums. Politicians, including the last Prime Minister, are able to make outrageous slurs, slanders, accusations and threats whilst dismissing anger amongst the working classes as mere “hysteria” or “mob mentality”.

In truth, our grievances, the worries, the concerns and the anxieties are there and need to be acknowledged. There is a depth of division, falsely symbolised by the Brexit “crisis” but more fundamentally detailed by the social and economic divisions – in other words, social class, privilege and poverty. It is palpable on the street, in neighbourhoods and clubs, shopping centres and charitable food banks. This is an uptight society showing every sign of potential explosion.

But Britain wants to be calm again, say political commentators. This may sound benign if not charming, but can hide a very real threat. What could be meant by “calm” other than a return to the status quo? A re-acceptance of the old doctrines of “know thy place”, “keep your head down”, “do as you’re told”, “be thankful for small mercies”, and “count your blessings”. Oh, and “Keep Calm and Carry On”, that absurd First World War slogan reinvented at the start of the Tory Government era from 2010 to now.

Why should anyone be calm after 10 years of Austerity policies and zero wage increases despite above zero inflation throughout that time? How can we count our lucky stars when the national health is in crisis, systemically, emotionally and physically? Why should we allow the very fragile and superficial amount of political suffrage ever afforded us to be taken away and replaced by an unaccountable oligarchy of born-rich elites? And then what are we to do about our fears for the future, for our children and grandchildren, in the face of climate chaos and societal collapse?

In any case, what does it mean to be “allowed” to express our emotions these days? There is no natural state of human consciousness that remains calm in all circumstances. Anger is an essential emotion for survival and when suppressed is self-destructive at best, homicidal at worst. Love is essential for survival too, for the wellbeing needed for procreation and child-rearing. And all emotional stops in-between are life-affirming expressions of what it is to be human.

To have emotionality in any way denigrated or or denied is an abuse. Of course it is generally better to manage our emotions well enough for them to be productive, but there is nothing superior about actions based on cold-hearted “objectivity” rather than subjective empathy and compassion. Indeed, many observe Capitalist society as a dictatorship of the psychopaths, the sociopaths who cannot and will not care for those around them.

The sheer level of bile projected through every medium at the moment is producing a level of emotional discord comparable to the mass anxieties of a period approaching the declaration of war. Whether war between nations is on the horizon or not is debatable. But at home there is already a war of attrition between individuals, family members, neighbours, workmates and strangers.

The rising hatred is doing a job for those in power: the masses, the lower classes, the mob, are fighting each other, not them. In fact, we are eating each other alive. It is difficult to see how, exactly, the commentators propose to “put the Nation back together”. In reality, the best interests of the two opposing classes, Capitalist and Worker, are diametrically opposed.

We are, and have been for centuries, finally divided between those who produce the wealth and those who own it. Redistribution of wealth requires one side to give-up something – and the working class has been “giving” more of its meagre share up to the powerful elite 1% ever more generously over the past 4 decades. The very real and essential need to redistribute back downwards is the real but hidden cause of the emotional distress and tension of the day.

The power of Capitalist class and their political classmates, able to control the media discourse, sack workers at will, determine the spending power of the currency and threaten the wrath of God against dissenters, is altogether awesome. It rules with such force that we feel powerless in its shadow, and, in desperation either give-in to hopelessness or seek to exert what little semblance of power we have over those nearest to us.

Many mimic the ruthlessness displayed by theirs rulers in the vain hope of some control over their own destinies. Others join in the song-and-dance of the elites in just as hopeless a gamble of having some crumbs of power and wealth drip down onto them. But there has been little social mobility across the entire history of capitalism, and absolutely none in Britain through the past 40 years. Hoping for a government of national salvation is the cruellest of all electoral illusions.

However gut-wrenching it may feel, we have to organise to join together, to share our common class interests rather than focus on our differences, and to redistribute our common frustrations, fears and failings out of our homes and on to those who are truly responsible. Collective mass action to demand redistribution of wealth and power is the only solution to this emotional climate. It is quite possible. After all, we are the many and they are the few. At the start of 35 days of infuriating electioneering we must remember that.

An independent journalist published an in-depth piece of focussed research as a radio programme on the BBC yesterday. On the surface it was about the building of a greater democracy into the school curriculum. Secondary school students from a variety (read “diversity” of class and ethnicity) of city schools were offered a chance to decide what key lessons they want as 14 and 15-year olds.

There was a bias and undercurrent to the journalistic thesis, finally admitted to but only with a sense of defeat. The journalist was conducting her research on the basis that this generation faced greater educational pressure, competition and more uncertainty about their future than possibly before the Second World War for UK citizens, or perhaps “ever before”.

It’s hard to compare generations when social standards, scientific understanding and global communication is all so different today. But there is no doubt that, whether it is because we are more aware, or more able to report, or less resilient than previous generations (suggested, but highly doubtful), our children are exhibiting far greater emotional disturbance, discord, alienation and ill-health than was ever previously recorded.

The journalist clearly had a predilection for a specific outcome, the prediction that Climate Change would be the children’s top priority. It is, after all, in the News. A menu of syllabus topics was offered up to a vote after informed discussion and debate. Young people were interviewed about their hopes and fears and interests and habits. They were forthright in the main, thoughtful and able to express themselves (at least, that is, those who got through the edit and onto the published programme).

The result shocked the journalist. Rather than any votes for a programme of teaching on the climate emergency and what to expect in the coming years, the school students voted overwhelmingly for classes on Life Skills. Life Skills: budgeting, getting a job, domestic maintenance, finding housing, cooking, and relationship stuff like mindfulness and issues of intimacy. They appeared wholly self-interested.

These weren’t a new brand of 1968 student rebels, all chomping at the bit to tear-down the Old and build a New World. They simply felt heavily ill-prepared to manage the very basic day-to-day tasks of life, never mind any macro-Big-Picture politics of the coming catastrophe – we’ll simply all be in that together when the time comes. Right now, we need to know how to live day-to-day and prosper while we still can.

There was something grossly conservative and pro-Capitalist about the voices. Where they were was “how it is”; “it is what it is” as the current over-used throw-away remark says. The implicit acceptance was not only that the way society works now is to be taken for granted, but that it is silly to hope for more or anything different. Just try and work the best you can to sustain what you have and derive what comfort may be sought in your individual space. Get a job, get on in it, find a partner – palatable if not perfect – and bunker-down inside your own comfy living space.

It is hard not to conclude that this programme was just another State-sponsored propaganda exercise by the British Broadcasting Corporation. The numbers of school students involved in the 3 days of school strikes this year have been historic by any comparison. The protests by Extinction Rebellion have involved young and old alike, but largely the younger, and gained blanket publicity for the issues and concerns. Surely the programme misrepresented the real minds of the young?

The human mind is so complex, best understood as a three-dimensional tension of opposites. Conflicting thoughts and emotions all vying to gain hegemony and determine the next thought, the next action and the general consciousness of the whole being. We all carry contradictory ideas with us all of the time. We may know one thing for sure but feel quite the opposite way about it, hoping its not true.

Why, for example, would you want to immerse yourself in the science of global heating and acknowledge the coming social convulsions when your entire body yearns for identity, value, love and the experience of every sensation produced by fun and laughter? At the same time, why would the fear of catastrophe be a motivator towards action and revolt rather than be simply disabling? We just want to get a life!

In the macro, the collective space, the System has long sought to pacify the general population and have us obsess about the sensuous, focus on the immediate and enjoy instant gratification. We are fed a myriad of opiates to suppress and obscure perceptions of inequality and injustice – our own and others’. Above all we are required to be not just individuals but individualistic, the centre of our own unique universe rather than a star in the vast collective firmament.

Little wonder that a large proportion, perhaps the majority, of young people today are urgently seeking individual solutions to the huge challenges humanity faces. And therein lies the dynamic contradiction. The pacification has bred a sense of unpreparedness rather than passivity. The young still want to be prepared as the active agent of their own destiny. They still desire self-determination, however complacent and compliant the education and legal systems seek to mould them.

In the micro we have to question why the modern day school curriculum alongside the nuclear family has left young people feeling so ill-equipped for Life and living, at least in the advanced industrial capitalist western world. And we must accept the feelings of young people who crave the independence of action and tools to “achieve” inside the Capitalist world, on the System’s terms. Accept their ambitions even tho’ we know that most will suffer a sense of failure to achieve the Capitalist Dream.

It is the very core human drive for self-determination that continuously offers hope for a better System, for rejection of the way things are, and for the creation of a sustainable world. The emotional challenge of the fight against alienation and low self-esteem certainly defeats some and renders many to make self-effacing compromises, but it does empower more than a few to outright revolt. And when the scale of revolt reaches a certain critical mass and offers a vision of a better future, the rest will follow, not least through a sense of pure self-interest.

The top headlines across today’s media cite the extraordinarily fierce fires across California alongside the damnation by a Public Inquiry of the London Fire Brigade for suggested failures in the ghastly Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 that killed 72 people. In both stories, there are fire-fighters risking their own lives to save other human beings. In both stories there is the cash-strapped emergency service reliant on inadequate resources and caught-out by the unforeseen ferocity of fast-moving flame. And in both stories there are the poor, inadequately protected, uncared for and left with nothing but tragedy.

It is as if this is a morality tale of our Age. The images of survivors, of ashen pallor, wide-eyed and numbed by the horror, slowly stumbling over words to explain their experiences and mourn their dead relatives, demand empathy and compassion. The blackened skeletons of their homes, the bones of chimneys or steel girders pointing skywards as if reaching in agony upwards from the charred earth, symbolise death and destruction.

Any possible sense of pathos is neutered by the irony of Halloween. Today’s “Celebration of the Dead” (or is it a commercial con for the sugar and toy industries?), will see children Trick or Treating around the safer neighbourhoods after tonight’s dusk. The costumed ghouls and masked devils will put to waste some millions of pumpkins to enjoy an evening of scares and thrills and all the tingles of safely contrived horror.

I much prefer the Celtic festival of Samhain which comes from the Old Irish for ‘Summer’s end’, livestock in from the higher pastures and a sufficient number slaughtered for the winter. A warming vegetarian meal (for preservation’s sake) sat around a roaring hearth. But perhaps this more modern, Christian-based Halloween is a useful rehearsal for times to come. Specifically, the climate catastrophe.

There will be more environmental fires, less ability to fight or prevent them, and far less public funding available to rehouse and re-establish the lives of the displaced. And far more death and suffering. Such a future doesn’t look like its going to be a walk in the park or a symbolic stroll with friends and family. Because, just as with California’s forests or England’s plastic-clad Tower Blocks, there has been little or no preperation for the coming conflagration.

On the surface, the Grenfell fire and the California fires appear to have nothing in common – one caused by Corporate failure and cost-cutting, and the other by global heating creating tinder conditions in the environment. The links become more obvious the more we look. Firstly, it is the poor of the world who are most vulnerable. They will continue to be the most affected and the soonest affected by environmental degradation. Secondly, the global economy based-upon the entwined dance of private accumulation and Debt (with a capital “D”) will ensure cuts to social infrastructure and the inevitability of social collapse as extreme weather events and their impact on human habitats become ever more frequent.

Thirdly, and not so apparent is the current Ecocide: the degradation of arable soil; emptying of ancient aquifer suppliers of water for agriculture; the mass extinction of pollinating insects; the destruction of the C02-capturing forests; the acidification of the seas. Halloween images of walking skeletons portray a very scary prediction.

Halloween came early for Extinction Rebellion, the mass March of the Dead on Saturday 12th October parading skeletons and coffins naming the recently extinct and predicting the end of humanity. It was a more powerful sight than any procession of giggling and growling trick-or-treaters tonight. We will see more street theatre depicting death and destruction in the coming months and years, alongside more mass tragedies as today epitomised by the California fires.

“We are all going to have to come together or we will end up slaughtering each other”, says Roger Hallam, an XR Founder, with the vision of the need to go “beyond politics” to act now against the threat of mass starvation. Certainly, the psycho-political understanding of the dynamics of climate change begins with the fact that global heating is a universal threat, not restricted to some nations or regions. It is the Truth that some regions will starve, many drown, and some burn.

Images of the dying on the TV and internet will render Halloween masks distasteful if not outlawed. Suffering will be widespread, the latest predictions being that at least 750million will be forced to migrate by sea-level rise alone by the year 2100. The displaced shanty cities with the flimsiest housing will be most vulnerable to early destruction. The forest fires and tinder-dry drought-ridden city suburbs will continue to burn. Indeed, the sea will set itself alight with the methane released from its clathrates. But the real experience of hellfire will be those watching it happen and knowing we could have done more to prevent it.

So now we know. There is to be a UK General Election in December. It may be a forlorn hope to expect that either War or the Climate Emergency will be of any priority on the highly toxic and grossly manipulated newsfeeds and combative broadcasts. This will be known historically and somewhat hysterically as the Brexit Election. Any larger global issues, including the prospective catastrophe of either climate collapse or nuclear war, will be airbrushed from the debate. Perhaps they’re deemed too emotive to be discussed, despite the anger, nay rage apparent for and against UK membership of the European Union.

Nevertheless, It has been to the credit of the socialist Left in Scotland that no discussion of Austerity or Brexit has recently taken place without at least a mention of Trident Replacement. Even the SNP are vocal about the issue. After all, they have nuclear weapons at Faslane, some 30 miles from Glasgow, and that NATO base is a huge bargaining chip with the UK Government in London.

Maintaining the campaign against Trident nuclear weapons has not been at anywhere near the same level in the Labour Party or other Left groups in the rest of Britain. There can be little doubt that the Corbyn compromise, leaving the pro-nuclear policies of Blair’s Labour Party in place, has taken focus away from Britain’s nuclear weapons.

Four years ago the polls showed that more than 70% of the population were against the replacement of Trident, the nuclear weapons system based in the UK but owned and controlled by the United States of America.

Back then, Trident was part-and-parcel of anti-war campaigning and common reference was made in any anti-Austerity speech, the cost of Trident replacement having shot up to over £205,000,000,000. Just the preparations, the research and development at the weapons establishments at Aldermaston and Burghfield, have been eating-up at least £2billion a year since 2014. The sheer cost, let alone the implications of new nuclear weapons, excited furious opposition.

No doubt Brexit has had an impact against retaining the focus. And the dramatic and welcomed cacophony from the climate protests of school strikes and Extinction Rebellion has all but drowned out the Anti-nuclear campaigns. Indeed many inside the environment movement still consider nuclear power to be an essential ingredient in the drive to carbon-zero in time to stop catastrophe. This is despite Chernobyl and Fukushima, the 10-year-plus build-time of new reactors, their absurdly high cost compared with renewables, huge carbon emissions in construction, thousand-year-plus environmentally toxic and carcinogenic waste, and direct relationship with nuclear weapons. The arguments against nuclear power are vital and worthy of their own blog entry separate to this, and should be discussed everywhere in the climate movement.

The even deeper political problem is that wars across the world are increasing and President Trump has done a great deal to increase the risk of the use of nuclear weaponry. Whilst we are all aware and appalled that Trump has pulled-out of the Paris Climate Agreement and opened up more drilling for oil, there has been far less focus upon his nuclear decisions.

It is not just that the USA broke the nuclear arms agreement with Iran, ramping up the threat of further and most deadly warfare across the Region. Trump has also pulled out of the bilateral INF Treaty with Russia and in so doing unleashed a new nuclear arms race. The New START Treaty talks aimed at reducing the current 13,000+ nuclear warheads in the world (more than enough to destroy all life on earth five times over) were due to begin in 2022 but are likely to be dead before then, by Trump’s intention.

We have seen a bonfire of nuclear treaties and a revitalised commitment to use nuclear weapons alongside new and very deadly tensions between rival nuclear-armed states. This is not just an aberration caused by Trump’s wreckless premiership, but the USA’s long-standing imperialist drive to protect its position as the world’s number one power. Obama had already shifted focus from terrorism to the “revisionist powers” of Russia and China, building new nuclear silos in North East Asia as a direct challenge to China from Guam, Okinawa and Japan.

The stated strategic plan remains for a network of “theatre nuclear weapons”, coldly described as “low-yield” being “only” the explosive size of those used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Modern nuclear warheads are generally ten-times that power. US-owned intermediate range nuclear missiles are being stationed across Europe, potentially including UK mainland where we will need to build the same scale of opposition symbolised by the Greenham Common protests that forced the withdrawal of US Cruise Missiles in the 1980’s.

Trump’s recently announced “Space Force” echo Reagan’s Star Wars boasts of the 1980’s but is now harrowingly possible, the technology having developed to make the militarisation of space possible. The addition of the temperamental but tantalising use of Artificial Intelligence is fast-tracking development of nuclear-armed drones with algorithms allowed to determine threat and discharge bombs automatically without needing authorisation from a human.

The risks from military New Technology require that arms control is strengthened, unlikely without widespread public exposure and opposition. The brutal “tactical-use” of a nuclear weapon is once again being considered as a winning gambit. No longer the Mutually Assured Destruction of Cold War defence, the military hawks believe that detonating a couple of nuclear bombs over a few hundred thousand people could once again scare the world into surrender and fast-track regime change.

The one consideration that has held them off so far, and still does, is public upset – the threat of anti-nuclear protest destabilising and even threatening regime change at home. Current levels of civil unrest across the world certainly warns military strategists of the threat from the “Enemy Within”. For their side it is best not publicise any plans for use of nuclear weapons before they’re executed; for our side, and indeed our survival, it is vital that we keep the opposition to nuclear weapons (and their infrastructure including nuclear power) very much alive and active.

NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, bringing together 29 countries under the domination of the Unites States, has a nuclear first-strike policy. Please read that twice. If and when deemed strategically essential, NATO would sanction the launch of nuclear warheads before any could be used against a NATO country. The old lie of nuclear weapons being a deterrent that ensures they’ll never be used was always a myth, and the “first strike” policy demolishes such nonsense once and for all.

Yet President Trump’s visit to England to join the NATO international Conference in London in December 2019 has very little publicity around protest action compared with his previous visits. Previous NATO Summits have seen huge and violent protests when sited in mainland Europe but are unlikely to be replicated in London. A Counter-Conference has been organised by Stop the War Coalition on Saturday 30th November together with a protest on Tuesday 3rd December when Trump arrives. These should be precisely the type of events for anti-war and environmental protesters to join together, en masse.

The open threat of nuclear war is once again overt and restated. Tensions are mounting in previously nuclear-free South America, where Brazil’s Bolsonaro has two nuclear power stations (first procured by Lula in a deal with France), off-line but producing the agents required for weapons, and the continent’s first nuclear-powered submarine is on order, a precursor to talks with Trump about the possible siting of US nuclear weapons. The threat to Venezuela, and by implication, non-compliant States across the region, is obvious.

The escalating conflicts in the Middle East include the continued use of depleted uranium, having the secondary value of spreading radioactive isotopes into the environment and thus obscuring the difference between the pollution from conventional mega-weapons such as Daisy Cutters and the radioactive residue from “low-yield” nuclear weapons, if and when used. Going nuclear is becoming an option in a world where one definition of the Anthropocene is the global coverage of human-made radioactive isotopes as a geological layer produced since the Second World War. “What difference does it make if a few nukes are exploded?”, is a question voiced by right-wing nationalists.

It is to the South China Seas that most observers look to predict the likeliest escalation in the next few years. In the Autumn of 2019 the UK carried out military exercises as part of the “Five Powers” in East Asia, identifying disputes in the South China Sea, concern about North Korea, and tensions with China, seen as the greatest threat to the USA in the long run. The US is requiring the upgrading of Japan, Australia, USA and India (The Quad) because NATO was never extended here after the independence struggles of the region.

The UK has been building links between NATO and the Quad. From December’s NATO Summit we are likely to see increased budgets and commitments to military control of the area of the South China Sea. Britain remains a Pacific power, and the “close relationship between Trump and Johnson can only assure Britain’s direct involvement in any nuclear tension – after all, we have Trident nuclear-armed submarines in the area and they are only of use as first-strike weapons.

The USA tested a nuclear-carrying new intermediate-range missile in mid-August 2019 weeks after breaking from the INF Treaty dating back to the Cold War era. The new rockets are designed for regional warfare, separate from the inter-continental ballistic missiles still very much in place. The USA is no longer an unrivalled power in the world, and the rivalries are re-arming into a super-charged arms race. Hence Trump boasted that the budget commitment to spend two and a half trillion dollars re-equipping the US military is a statement to rivals that they’ll take on all opposition, everywhere.

Officially, China has reaffirmed commitments to “no first use” whilst pushing forward with new weaponry. North Korea has also signed-up to no first use, as has India, despite its’ stand off with nuclear-armed Pakistan over Kashmir. Pakistan has not signed. Then we have the current tension in the immediate area of nuclear-armed Israel and the tensions with Iran which has restarted nuclear research and development.

The European Union is not to be outdone. Brussels has clearly indicated that they are driving for the military integration of all European States, using the EU Constitution as its rationale to use the EU to its full potential as a world power. The Lisbon Treaty includes the European Defence Treaty and a capability and armaments policy for EU militarisation, with PEScO (The Permanent Structured Cooperation in which 25 of the 28 national armed forces pursue structural integration) seeking funding, currently at €25billions, to be increased by 20 times the existing cash. The EU is on a trajectory towards having its own nuclear weapons independent of the USA. The EU’s Galileo satellite tracking system has been developed as a military answer to the USA being able to switch off its GPS in the event of hostilities.

Whilst Denmark and Ireland are seeking to opt-out of EU militarisation, France and UK have the bilateral “Tuetates” Nuclear Co-operation Treaty of 2010 to work together on nuclear weapons, the USA being in the background, with Aldermaston and Burghfield linking with their co-sites in France. This is likely to continue whatever the outcome of Brexit, Britain looking both ways at once and strategically placed as on the front-line wherever the geography of war may require placement of naval power with nuclear armaments.

Britain is also a central party to Trump’s Space Force. The construction of three space ports, at Sutherland and Prestwick airports in Scotland and one at Cornwall alongside the Newquay airport, places these military guarded sites close to existing nuclear weapons sites. Satellites will be launched with small weapons able to interfere with the satellite systems of other countries. The militarisation of space is accelerating, with India testing anti-satellite weapons whilst Trump has spoken about putting nuclear weapons in space. Israel, USA and UK have consistently abstained or voted against the U.N. Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) motion.

In the history of humanity no two nuclear armed nations have ever gone to war against each other and yet we are closer now to that event than ever before. Members of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which organises the Doomsday Clock, announced in January 2019 that “the dangers of the world are being normalised, including climate change and nuclear war”. On the scale of a 24-hour clock of risk, the world is at two minutes to midnight, the closest it has been to so-called Armageddon since 1953 when hydrogen bombs were being tested by the US and Soviet Union as the Cold War began to simmer.

It is not difficult to surmise that rival Capitalist nations will drive towards nuclear warfare well before climate catastrophe engulfs the world. Indeed, the competition for food, water, land and resources caused by sea level rise, glacial melt, endless drought and soil deterioration will inevitably be a major catalyst of wars both minor and major.

Global heating is not a single issue amongst many, the threat of climate collapse encompasses all other campaigns from Austerity and anti-racism to Democracy and Peace. But so does the nuclear issue.

Some of us have made great headway this year in building the XR Peace contingent across all Extinction Rebellion protests. We have also linked the climate and anti-war campaigns to those against racism and border controls. Socialists joined with XR Peace protesters in direct action against the Arms Fair in September. The campaign group, Stand Up to Racism has exposed the racist blaming of Muslims for the succession of wars started by the West and still causing tens of thousands of deaths and millions of refugees.

Environmental activists and socialists should use the General Election, not only to challenge Austerity and the gross inequality that has forced more than 14 million people into poverty in the UK, but push for action to prevent Climate Catastrophe and Nuclear war. We have to demand specific consideration by prospective MPs of the just transition of jobs away from building the new generation of drones, new nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons infrastructure including nuclear power plants and the dumping of nuclear waste on land and at sea.

This is far from easy. In the South West we have joined and helped campaigns against Hinkley C nuclear power station, and lead and won campaigns against permanent nuclear dumping in Plymouth. The planned military Space Port alongside Newquay Airport in Cornwall from where armed military satellites will be launched will offer the next target for action, linking climate and nuclear issues once again. To win we have to ensure mass consciousness of the real and present dangers, and demand policies against environmental catastrophe, against war and against nuclear. Time is short.